Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PARKESTON QUAY BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in industrial disputes in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): It is provisionally estimated that 7·4 million working days were lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom in the 12 months ended 28 February 1983.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents an improvement compared with most 12-month periods in recent years and is a vindication of the Government's step-by-step approach to industrial relations reform?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that, in general, this is an improvement. It shows that more people realise that there is rarely anything to be gained by striking.

Mr. Skinner: If the Minister and the Government are anxious to give the impression that everything is fine and dandy on the industrial scene, why do they not get in touch with those at British Leyland, tell them to stop hanky-pankying about with the so-called washing up and bathing time—although the argument is a little more important than that—or the six minutes about which the strike is alleged to have occurred, and realise that they should treat British Leyland workers as part of the wealth creators of this country in the same way—or perhaps nearly as well—as Members of Parliament, who do not clock on at all? From the evidence of today's attendance, many of them are bathing and washing up all day.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman would do more to help those whom he claims to represent if he explained that the enormous assistance given to British Leyland by this country through the taxpayers' money would be better supported by workers staying at work and making good British products available for sale throughout the world.

Democracy in Trade Unions

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what responses he has had to the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions".

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has had to his recent Green Paper on trade unions.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I have received 147 representations on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions". The period for consultations ended on 8 April.

Sir William van Straubenzee: In his consideration of these representations, will my right hon. Friend give due weight to the representations that I have received from industrialists in my constituency to the effect that compulsory ballots before strikes might introduce rigidity at the point where flexibility would be more desirable?

Mr. Tebbit: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which has been made by a number of people who have responded to the consultations. I assure my hon. Friend that the measures that are eventually brought forward will be not only effective but highly flexible.

Mr. Walker: Following the responses that my right hon. Friend has received, is there a likelihood of further legislation being introduced?

Mr. Tebbit: The overwhelming thrust of the responses that we have received in the consultations suggests that legislation is needed to improve the practices and to ensure an adequate measure of democracy in trade unions.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the light of the disturbing indications from the National Economic Development Council about growth and employment prospects for the next part of this decade, will the Secretary of State seriously consider looking again at his Green Paper with a view to combining proposals for industrial democracy with the proposals for secret ballots that he took from my party and a proposal for an adequate vote by shares before corporate financing is made to the Conservative party?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure to which of her parties the right hon. Lady refers—the old one or the new one.

Mrs. Williams: The new one.

Mr. Tebbit: The new one, the right hon. Lady says.
I had come to the conclusion that these ballots were needed before the right hon. Lady swapped parties after she was defeated. The right hon. Lady is unfortunately confusing democracy in trade unions, which is the subject of my Green Paper and is about returning the property of the unions to those who rightly own it—the trade unionists—with her proposal to give away the property of companies to people who do not own that property.

Mr. Varley: When will the Secretary of State produce a Green Paper on democracy in employers associations, and especially on the undemocratic and unauthorised company donations to the Conservative party that have neither the consent nor the approval of ordinary shareholders?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these matters are governed by the Companies Acts and that such contributions must be reported to the shareholders, who have absolute power over them.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from Conservative Trade Unionists—an organisation that represents more moderates in industrial relations than almost any other in the country—in favour of opting into rather than out of political levy and the election by secret ballot of trade union committee leaders at all levels? Does he agree that those representations carry more weight than any of the nonsense from the Opposition?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is correct. I have received comments on the proposals from Conservative Trade Unionists and from a number of individual trade unionists of perhaps any or no party. They all point in the same general direction—that proposed in the Green Paper.

Mr. James Lamond: If the Secretary of State was listening to the answer to the previous question, he will know that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that trade unionists and workers were becoming better behaved because the number of days lost through strike action was constantly falling. In the light of that satisfaction on the part of the Government, why is there any need to press ahead with further legislation?

Mr. Tebbit: It is desirable to reduce the level of strikes still further, but what is even more desirable in these matters is that the ordinary members of trade unions should have control over their own property—the trade unions.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number and percentage of people unemployed in April of 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, respectively.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. It shows that the rate of unemployment was 5·7 per cent. in April 1978 and 12·1 per cent. in April 1982.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that those figures, more than anything else, destroy the myth perpetrated by the Government that the present level of unemployment is caused by the world recession? If so, will the Government stop kidding the people of this country about that? In view of the ever-increasing unemployment, at what point will the Government begin to consider whether their economic policies may be wrong? Would 5 million unemployed be an acceptable figure for the Government?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman's assumptions are wrong. He forgets the experience of the Labour party. Unemployment doubled under the Labour Governments of the 1960s and again under the Labour Governments of the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman forgets the physical phenomenon of the gap between seed time and harvest in these matters. We are reaping the harvest of the inflationary outrages inflicted on the British people by the Labour Government.

Mr. Forman: I share my hon. Friend's concern about unemployment. Will he confirm that the deliberate creation of unemployment is no part of the Government's policy?

Mr. Alison: I naturally and absolutely confirm that.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor's call for the suppression of the NEDC report showing that unemployment would not fall in this decade? Whether he does or not, what constructive response can he make to that very disturbing report?

Mr. Alison: I reject the conclusions of that report in so far as they represent a projection of expectations into the next decade which are wholly unacceptable to the Government.

The information is as follows:
The following table gives, for the United Kingdom, the number of unemployed claimants and percentage rate of unemployment in April of each of the years specified. The figures include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted.

Number
Percentage rate


April 1978
1,369,800
5·7


April 1979
1,260,900
5·2


April 1980
1,418,100
5·9


April 1981
2,372,700
10·1


April 1982
2,818,500
12·1

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total of unemployed in inner London.

Mr. Gummer: At 10 March there were 170,602 unemployed claimants in the jobcentre areas which correspond most closely to the 13 inner London boroughs.

Mr. Dubs: Has the Under-Secretary seen the recent report of the inner London consultative employment group, showing that in the past four years cuts in public spending in inner London have contributed to the downturn in inner London's economy and thus resulted in high unemployment? Is he aware that even Conservative boroughs, such as Wandsworth, which have been cutting services to reduce rates, have experienced record increases in redundancies? Does he agree that a major rethink of economic policy will be needed before we can tackle the major problems of unemployment in inner London?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must understand that inner London, like the rest of the country, is still suffering from the wrong economic policies that led us to believe that the rest of the world owed us a living and that we could spend this year earnings that would not be made until next year. The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers would have done well to devote more attention to the fact that in many London boroughs a considerable impact on employment is caused by Labour councils putting up the rates and thus driving out both people and jobs.

Mr. Stokes: If unemployment in central London is so high, why is the booking office at Marylebone underground station almost always closed with a large notice saying, "Closed due to shortage of staff"?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to give detailed reasons for the emptiness of the Marylebone booking office, but he rightly points out that many jobs exist in inner London. If the Opposition want more jobs in inner London, they should use their influence with local Labour councils to maintain and create jobs rather than to force them out.

Mr. Tilley: Does the Minister agree that the figure that he has given for unemployment shows the total failure of


the Government's inner city policy in relation to London? Does he further agree that this is the worst possible time for the Manpower Services Commission, which his Department controls, to switch its main provision for the adult unemployed from the community enterprise programme to the community programme, under which existing projects will offer part-time work at very low wages as the only provision for the adult unemployed in inner London? Will he consider allowing the community enterprise schemes in inner London to continue with their present structure for at least another year?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that that is the only provision for the adult unemployed in inner London. To cite just one example, £40 million is going to the London docklands scheme. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that will provide no jobs for the adult unemployed? He would do his constituents far more good if he praised the schemes that are providing more opportunities in London than anything achieved by the Labour Government.

Democracy in Trade Unions

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he proposes to produce a White Paper on trade union democracy that will take account of the representations he has received on this subject.

Mr. Tebbit: The period for consultations on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions" has now ended and I am considering the responses that have been received. It is my intention to publish as soon as possible the Government's conclusions on what legislative steps may need to be taken in this area, either as a White Paper or in some other suitable form.

Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some steps should be taken immediately, such as strengthening and widening the role of the certification officer? Does he further agree that it is a matter of great concern that members of NALGO, which is currently conducting a £1 million political campaign against local authority spending cuts, apparently cannot take their case to the certification officer simply because their union does not have a political fund?

Mr. Tebbit: I note my hon. Friend's comments, but it is not always possible to get things done immediately in this area of policy. There is not always a consensus across the Floor of the House in these matters. I believe that most of NALGO's members are highly embarrassed by the reports of the survey conducted by NALGO showing that local government expenditure cuts, such as they have been, are regarded by most people as too little and too late.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most important documents that should be taken into account when considering these matters is the Gennard report, commissioned by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, which has been in gestation for many years and which, presumably, is a thorough, scholarly work? Based on that report were most of the strictures of the alleged evils of the closed shop that were made in Committee on the Employment Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister of State promised that when the report was available we would all have copies of it? I have tried to obtain a copy from the Vote Office—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must complete his question rather than make a statement.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State undertake to have this document printed so that views on the closed shop can be based on research, not on prejudice?

Mr. Tebbit: We did not base our policies on the Gennard report, which had not completed at the time, in any case. As the hon. Gentleman says, it has now been published. It has not been printed, but it is available in photocopy form. I should be happy to lend the hon. Gentleman a copy if he would like it, or so that he can make his own photocopy of it.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figure for the number of unemployed persons.

Mr. Tebbit: At 10 March the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,172,390. That was a slight fall from the February figure. The seasonally adjusted figures show an increase in unemployment over that month, but job vacancies have slightly improved.

Mr. Parry: Is the Secretary of State aware that in some of our inner city areas male unemployment is as high as 50 per cent.? What plans do the Government have to reduce those horrendous figures? Will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent talks with Mr. Alex Moon, the chairman of Kraft Foods, which this week has announced that a further 930 jobs will be axed in Kirkby? We cannot afford those job losses on Merseyside.

Mr. Tebbit: I advise the hon. Gentleman, who is a Liverpool Member, perhaps to go back to the Ford strikers at Halewood and tell them bluntly that until they match the standards of production of workers in Germany, with exactly the same equipment, there is singularly little prospect for increased employment in the British motor industry on Merseyside.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce unemployment significantly would be for the British public, before making purchases in the future, to think British? If they spent 4 per cent. more per week of their household budgets on British goods, which they could well do, because the quality is better than it was, that would reduce unemployment by more than one third of a million.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, one has to be able to obtain those British goods. If factories close down due to strikes, those goods are not obtainable.

Mr. Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unacceptable reply and claptrap by the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That prevents further questions on this matter.

Job Creation

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment to what measures to reduce the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom he attaches particular priority.

Mr. Alison: To reduce unemployment we must create the economic conditions in which industry can become more competitive. Low inflation, a sound monetary and fiscal framework and moderate wage settlements are crucial for this.

Mr. Evans: Has the Minister seen the National Economic Development Council's report, which was published today, which shows that in the 40 sectors in manufacturing industry and the service industries there will be further increases in unemployment throughout the 1980s if the Government pursue their present policies? Do we not need a radical change in the Government's policies or, better still, a change of Government?

Mr. Alison: I do not attach overwhelming importance to that report. It was culled and developed before the latest upturn occurred. If it could not foresee the immediate upturn that occurred, it is unlikely that it would get the next 10 years right.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to the reduction of unemployment for British manufacturers to provide the goods and services that the public want, at the price that the public will pay and when the public are prepared to take them?

Mr. Alison: I agree with my hon. Friend's observation. I hope that his point has been noted in Cowley and elsewhere.

Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that 138,000 people on Merseyside—one in five of the working population — are unemployed? Is he further aware that Kraft Foods, which announced a further 1,000 redundancies last week, together with Bowyers, Lyons Maid and others that have pulled out of the city in the past few months, has not complained about levels of productivity? What will the Minister do to ensure that the jobs that have been bled from Merseyside are restored to the people there?

Mr. Alison: I think that the single word "Halewood" would be an adequate reply to give to the inhabitants of Merseyside.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees had responded to his publicity campaign for the new youth training scheme in south Yorkshire at the latest available date; and how many places in total they were able to offer.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): Some 220 inquiries had been received in south Yorkshire up to 18 March. A substantial number of these were from employers. It is too early to estimate how many places will result from those inquiries.

Mr. Wainwright: My question should have been corrected to read "how many employers", not "employees".
Does the Minister realise that Government policies are not encouraging local authorities to help people as much

as they would like to help them and that they are not encouraging employers to participate as much as they should? Is he aware that six or seven years ago, 24,000 trainees were being trained to be technicians, technologists and so on, but now fewer than 6,000 are coming up? When will the Government do something about that?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government, through the Manpower Services Commission, are preparing for 460,000 entrants throughout the country to the youth training scheme. I should have thought that that was doing something about it.

Mr. Marlow: Will the employers include Her Majesty's forces?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence may be making a statement on that later this week.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the youth training scheme will make no more impact on the fundamental problem of youth unemployment than the abandoned youth opportunities programme unless there are fundamental changes in the Government's economic policies?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that if the country has a better trained work force the likelihood of jobs for youngsters will be much greater. As a result of the youth training scheme we shall have a better trained work force.

Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress in achieving his target in places for youth training initiative schemes.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many places under the youth training scheme have now been guaranteed by sponsors.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Major employers nationally have so far promised 65,000 places on the scheme, and 100,000 new training places under the youth opportunities programme are now ready for conversion. At local level, discussions about the scheme are taking place with thousands of potential sponsors and I am confident that the target of 460,000 entrants to the scheme this year will be met.

Mr. Lee: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as encouraged as I am from the inquiries that I have made locally in my area at the Manpower Services Commission and careers office that the target in Pendle will be achieved. On a national basis, does my hon. Friend feel that the Government are doing enough in giving a lead in the Civil Service?

Mr. Morrison: I think I am right in saying that there is a need for 1,500 places in my hon. Friend's constituency. We are confident that that target will be reached. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury will answer questions later this afternoon on the national situation.

Mr. Haselhurst: To what extent do those figures represent fulfilment of the hope expressed in the MSC's youth task group report for a network of managing agents across the country providing a full range of opportunities for young people in their localities?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that the targets set by the youth task group will be met.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not an indictment of Government policy that already 250,000 young people under 18 are without jobs and training? Is it not a disgrace that the Government's last desperate pre-election massaging of the jobless figures is to propel our teeenagers towards the army, which is backdoor conscription? Have the MSC and the Ministry of Defence been consulted on this conscription scheme?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman knows that the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme are voluntary. The 250,000 youngsters to whom the hon. Gentleman referred as being without jobs represent an indictment of the mismanagement of the economy by the Labour Government.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend consider the problem, about which I have written to him, of careers officers who, as yet, seem to have little information about the new scheme and are worried about the conversion from YOP to the new training scheme? Does he agree that it is immensely important that careers officers should have the necessary information in the next six to eight weeks before the schools go back?

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Careers officers have an important role to play. I assure him that I am in touch with the Institute of Careers Officers, which will get the relevant and right information in time.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the Minister aware that his enthusiasm and optimism are not shared in Scotland or Merseyside, where regional officers say that they do not expect to get sufficient mode A places?
Secondly, is he aware that my local Conservative-controlled authority, Sefton, has announced that it expects to have to introduce a rescue attempt in the summer because its co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission is not going well?
Thirdly, is he aware that in December the standards will be set for places that will be introduced in September?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Lady is looking at different figures for Scotland and Merseyside. We have some time to run, but at this stage, both in Scotland and Merseyside, we have sufficient mode A and B places for youngsters who want to join the scheme. The right hon. Lady will be aware that the MSC has set up a separate body to examine standard setting. I am satisfied that that is a good and properly organised body. I shall be happy to look into the relationship between Sefton and the MSC.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the job splitting and young workers schemes are regarded outside as expensive and ineffective ways of producing jobs for young people? Will he scrap them and use the resources more effectively to create work for young people?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated total number of persons each month no longer registered as unemployed as a result of his change in the method of counting and the further measures announced in the Budget.

Mr. Gummer: Current monthly estimates are not made for the numbers of non-claimants on the old basis of registrations. I shall set out in the Official Report the detailed figures of the further measures announced in the Budget. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the effects of these measures on the unemployment count will be monitored as they occur and will be fully set out.

Mr. Foulkes: How many more fiddles does the Minister have up his sleeve? Who does he think he is kidding? Does he realise that the real level of unemployment—more than 4 million—is blackmailing many people into premature retirement and early poverty?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should not follow too closely the example set by his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and make such extreme and outrageous attacks that are wildly outside the facts. He ought to accept that what we can do to help people who are unemployed is proper and that at no time have we hidden figures of any type. If he spent more time explaining that to his contituents, rather than making outrageous statements, he would help them considerably.

Mr. Renton: With regard to my hon Friend's original reply, will he and his Department consider publishing the number of people who have found jobs as a result of measures that were announced in the Budget? For example, would it not be helpful to know how many new jobs have been created by the business expansion scheme, by the youth training scheme and by job-sharing, and how many people were involved in community programmes?

Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly examine my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will agree that it does the nation no good to pretend that there is a cover-up when all the figures are on the table to be read.

Mr. Greville Janner: Do the additional measures that the Government intend to take to curb the awful level of unemployment really include the appointment of a Minister for the west midlands, which would be a purely cynical pre-election gambit? Will the Prime Minister appoint a Minister for the east midlands, where the problem is staggering, or even one for the Braunston estate in my constituency, where more than half of the people there are unemployed?

Mr. Gummer: Those who have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's question will make their own judgment about who is electioneering.

Mr. Radice: Does the Minister realise that if he were to add to the Government's unemployment figure the difference of 150,000 accounted for by the change in the method of counting, the 80,000 or 90,000 60-year-olds who were removed by the Budget, the 400,000 that the labour force survey showed had not registered previously and the 360,000 on special measures, the real unemployment figure would be at least 4 million? Is it not time that the Government were a little honest about the unemployment figures?

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman has suggested by that list that the Government do a good deal of double counting, my answer is no, that would not be a more accurate figure for the number of unemployed people. The Government have made every change absolutely clear in such a way that makes it perfectly possible for any hon. Member to understand the figures. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a fiddle, he should examine some of the activities that went on under the Labour Government, which were not so clear.

Following are the figures:
My right hon. and learned Friend in his Budget statement announced that some 90,000 men aged between 60 and 65 will, from April, no longer have to sign on at an unemployment benefit office to secure credits for national insurance contributions. Also, from June, some 42,000 men aged over 60 will qualify for the higher long-term rate as soon as they come on to supplementary benefit and will in effect be treated as if they had already reached retirement age. Two other measures were announced, the extensions of the job release scheme and enterprise allowances. Figures on these and other employment and training measures are published each month with the unemployment and vacancies press notice.

Water and Sewerage Industries

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what conveniently available figures he has for the numbers of job vacancies in the water and sewerage industries which are registered at offices of his Department.

Mr. Peter Morrison: At 4 February there were 114 unfilled vacancies notified to jobcentres in the United Kingdom for jobs in the water supply industry. Figures for sewerage services are not available.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government accept the estimate of the civil engineers that for every £100 million that is spent on water and sewerage construction, £50 million would be got back in increased taxes paid by contractors whose employees would otherwise be unemployed? That is the view of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Do the Government accept it?

Mr. Morrison: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government do not accept that view.

Job Vacancies

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend in job vacancies.

Mr. Tebbit: Unfilled vacancies notified to jobcentres have been increasing since the middle of last year. In March, vacancies were 15,480—some 14 per cent. —higher than in the same month last year.

Mrs. Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. How does that figure compare with the trend in job vacancies in some of our industrial competitor countries?

Mr. Tebbit: I am afraid that I do not have directly comparable figures. In many cases, such figures are not published. It is important that we consider what is happening in Britain. In Birmingham, for example, where rates are 12 per cent. lower this year, vacancies have increased by 44 per cent. in the past 12 months. In London, by contrast, where rates have increased by 150 per cent. in two years, vacancies have increased by only 1·5 per cent.

Mr. Varley: When will the level of unemployment return to that which the Government inherited on 4 May 1979?

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that that will happen during one of our future and many terms of office as a Conservative Government, and, above all, when industry becomes more competitive, can satisfy the needs of its customers and can take better advantage of, for example, the present record of retail sales.
In the first three months of this year, for the first time ever, we sold more than 500,000 cars in Britain. There is a boom in consumption throughout the economy and it is up to British industry to satisfy it.

Mr. Varley: Why does not the Secretary of State say that he does not know? In the light of yesterday's report by the director general of the National Economic Development Office, is it not a fact that the Conservative party's campaign before the general election stated that unemployment would be reduced from the then "unacceptable" level, and was that not a campaign of sheer hypocrisy?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. If we had wanted a campaign of hypocrisy we would have used the right hon. Gentleman's election address. He knows perfectly well that unemployment has increased more in Germany, Norway and other countries since May 1979—

Mr. Radice: It is a lie.

Mr. Tebbit: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting "It is a lie." I am willing to publish the figures that show it is true.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, may I say that it is most unpleasant to hear the word "lie" in the Chamber. I hope that it will not be used again.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What is the trend in job vacancies in the British construction industry, which is a good indicator of whether the economy is on the upturn?

Mr. Tebbit: Those figures are not available at present, but I shall send them to my hon. Friend. The important thing about the construction industry is that house starts and completions are booming this year, and the industry is well on the way to recovery.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has had from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Engineering Employers Federation on the training content of the youth training scheme.

Mr. Peter Morrison: No representations have been received from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Engineering Employers Federation on the training content of the youth training scheme. Both have been involved in discussions about the implementation of the scheme.

Mr. Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend make certain that the training under the youth training scheme is compatible with the first year of the apprentice engineering scheme, and is he satisfied that he can adequately monitor the quality of training under those schemes, because there is concern on both counts?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that, as this is a quality training scheme, we shall ensure that training is properly monitored. As to the first part of his question, that is for the industry itself, but I hope that further apprenticeships can be built on the youth training scheme.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As the Government have destroyed 2·5 million jobs—more than any Government since the war—why is the word "voluntary" used when those on the youth training scheme are told they can join the armed forces and serve in what is really conscription?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is well aware, because the youth opportunities programme was introduced by the Government of which he was a member, that it is voluntary and will remain so.

South Yorkshire

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the rate of increase in unemployment in south Yorkshire.

Mr. Alison: The percentage increase in registered unemployment in the year to October 1982 was 9 per cent. in south Yorkshire, compared with 10 per cent. for the United Kingdom. Since October 1982 the increase in the number of unemployed claimants has been in the range of 4 to 5 per cent. in both south Yorkshire and the United Kingdom. The figures include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of Government policies, we have been losing jobs at a rate of 100 a day in south Yorkshire? Can he confirm that we have now passed the sad and tragic landmark of 100,000 unemployed in a county with a population of 1¼ million?

Mr. Alison: I cannot confirm that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is Government policy to reduce jobs and create unemployment. More than 17,000 people in south Yorkshire were placed in employment by the employment services during the past 12 months.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that, although percentages do not usually matter, they are very important in the Mexborough area? Despite the fact that the Government have removed many categories from the unemployment register, is he aware that the area now has 23 per cent. unemployment? When will he do something for that district?

Mr. Alison: We are well aware, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of the high unemployment in the Mexborough area, which is why special provision is being made to help it.

Wages Councils (Pay Levels)

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the likely effect on jobs of the revised proposals by wages councils for increased levels of pay in their sectors.

Mr. Tebbit: I have no precise estimates of the effects of the recent wages awards. However, it is obvious that the higher the minimum rates wages councils set, the fewer jobs there will be.

Mr. Townend: I thank my right hon. Friend for using his influence to reduce the original proposals, which could

have been so damaging. Does he accept that the councils' activities reduce job opportunities for young people? Althouh I accept that, due to international obligations, it is impossible to abolish the councils now, will my right hon. Friend consider removing those aged under 21 from their jurisdiction?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend overrates my influence. I merely drew the attention of the chairmen and members of the wages councils to the implications of what they proposed and they, on their own initiative, volunteered to change their proposals. I am advised that it would be impossible to carry out my hon. Friend's proposal while remaining in line with our obligations under ILO convention 26.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

European Community Budget

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will give a progress report on the negotiations concerning the net United Kingdom contribution to the European Community budget.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The March European Council agreed that the Commission would now make specific proposals on a lasting solution to the budget problem, and the Council of Foreign Ministers will report its conclusions to the June European Council. The Foreign Ministers are also committed to reporting conclusions on an interim solution, and it is agreed that provision for refunds for the 1983 budget year will be incorporated in the draft budget for 1984.

Mr. Marlow: Since European moneys are spent less prudently and with less control than moneys spent by Her Majesty's Government, and since my right hon. Friend is committed to the overall reduction of public expenditure, will she confirm to a grateful House that on no account will her Government permit any increase in European own resources?

The Prime Minister: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling. I am on record as saying clearly that that should not be exceeded, as is the Federal Republic of Germany. Own resources in general are quite sufficient and will continue to be so for many years, provided that the common agricultural policy is brought under proper control and a smaller proportion of the budget is spent on it than at present.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Prime Minister aware that she has been talking about a lasting solution for the past two years? Will she have the courage to admit that there is no such thing as a lasting solution because fellow states in the EC do not want it and have no intention of granting it?

The Prime Minister: It was thought that the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling would be reached before it has been and that that would give an opportunity fundamentally to revise the structure of the European budget. It was not reached, but many more countries are now searching for a lasting solution because they car see that if agricultural expenditure continues as it is there will not be sufficient resources. That gives an opportunity for fundamental reform that was not there previously.

Engagements

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Basildon district council has increased the rate demand by 20 per cent.—more than four times the rate of inflation—has spent £3,000 of ratepayers' money on declaring Basildon a nuclear-free zone, and has made a £1,000 political contribution to the Billericay and Basildon branches of the CND, so placing in jeopardy jobs, defence and genuine services in my constituency? During my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she send a message to my constituents—ratepayers and voters—telling them to vote Conservative in the local elections in May?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that most people want local authorities to give good value for money and to provide genuine local services, and that they do not want empty political gestures. I also agree that high increases in rates can jeopardise the future of small businesses and jobs. As to what he said about questionable expenditure, I remind him that the local auditors have the power to inquire into the expenditure of local councils. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's latter point.

Mr. Foot: Will the Prime Minister confirm, or deny, the report that she is proposing to appoint a Minister for the west midlands? Is this appointment belated recognition of the loss of 300,000 jobs in the past three years, which is one quarter of the total jobs available?

The Prime Minister: What has happened was announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry during the Budget debate. The work on the west midlands, which is not an area for which regional policy benefits are obtainable, has been allocated within the Department of Industry to the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Foot: What about the 300,000 jobs? Are not these figures included in the NEDO report that was discussed at the meeting yesterday, at which some Government Ministers apparently proposed that the report should be suppressed? Will the right hon. Lady tell, the House whether she agrees or disagrees with the reports suggestion that there will be no increase in jobs in this decade, and will she tell us the reason for the suggested suppression?

The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friends who attended NEDO argued very strictly about the report, and so did the CBI. The CBI can see some improvement in the prospects for the future. It realises that there are new jobs coming from the new industries and it is very much aware that there is little future for anyone in this country if money is poured into protecting yesterday's jobs rather than helping to support new ones.

Mr. Foot: Was that indicated in the NEDO report?

The Prime Minister: The NEDO report was a matter for NEDO. It has not yet been fully published. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report?

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the zest and commitment of the employees of the National Freight Corporation show what can be achieved when an enterprise is freed from state control and when employees are given a stake in the business in which they work? Does not this success emphasise the folly of the Labour party's recent promise to nationalise huge chunks of industry?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the consortium has had an extremely successful start. It has made higher profits than during its last year of state ownership, and for the first time the people who work in that business have the right to a stake in it and own it themselves. That is a far better way to proceed than to make those industries state-owned. The way in which the Government are proceeding, of returning state-owned industries to the people who work in them and to the private sector, offers much better prospects for the future.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why Mr. Geoffrey Chandler, the director general, was given such a rough time at NEDO in presenting an objective report? Is he to be made the Campbell Adamson of the next election?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Campbell Adamson was the director general of the CBI. On this occasion the CBI was supporting the view taken by the Government. Obviously there is no similarity between the two.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the essential difference is between the upturn in the economy that is being forecast by the Government and the three previous similar forecasts that did not materialise?

The Prime Minister: One of the differences is that we appear to be getting an upturn in several countries simultaneously, which was not the case before. Britain's first upturn towards the end of 1981–82 occurred at the same time as the worst of the recession was hitting Germany. There are signs of a similar upturn in the United States, Britain and Germany. We do not believe that the upturns are merely a recovery from the rundown of stock.

Mr. Greenway: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend noted the oft-repeated remark, and indeed aspersion, of the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that the Government are spending more on defence than on education? In a highly dangerous world, are not the Government right to give the highest priority to defence, and would not all our social services, including education, be at risk if that were not done?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Our way of life is worth defending. We have to spend sufficient money on defence, both individually and as part of NATO, to ensure that it is not imperilled. Were we not to do so, all of our social services, housing and


everything else would be imperilled as, I believe, was once pointed out by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate has not been approved because, apparently, his wife has expressed opposition to fox hunting? Does the Prime Minister approve of that decision, and, if so, why? If she does not approve of that decision, will she condemn this deplorable action by a party that is always talking about the personal freedom of the individual?

The Prime Minister: I answer for many things from this Dispatch Box, but not for the selection of Conservative candidates. Local parties choose for themselves.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Kremlin has lavished praise on the Labour party's new campaign document? Is my right hon Friend surprised about that and will she comment on it?

The Prime Minister: I have not read the sentences to which my hon Friend has referred. If one reads the document, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that the Kremlin would lavish praise upon it, because it would severely weaken the defences of this country and NATO.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the latest official figures show that there are now 7 million people living in supplementary benefit poverty in this country and that that is an increase of no less than 60 per cent. since she came to power? Are we not seeing the ugly face of Thatcherite Britain, in which the rich have massive tax handouts showered upon them at the same time as one in eight of the population are reduced to means-tested poverty?

The Prime Minister: The numbers of people on supplementary benefit have increased largely due to the increased number of unemployed. They are able to get—I am sure the hon. Gentleman thinks this is right—sufficient for their needs. That has been the policy under all Governments, including the Labour Government.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the police in this country are held in much higher public esteem than some Left-wing cranks would have us believe? Will she confirm that if, in certain circumstances,

the police consider it necessary to use weapons to combat armed crime, they will have the wholehearted backing of the Government in so doing?

The Prime Minister: We rely on the police as the first arm of the law to enforce order in this country and to bring people before the courts. Sometimes they have an extremely dangerous job to do. When they are likely to have to deal with people who are armed, under those circumstances and in accordance with the guidelines of the Home Office, they can go out armed. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country support that action.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister find time today to order an inquiry into the price of petrol in this country? It cannot be in accordance with market economics, which her Government follow, that when the price of oil goes down the petrol companies propose to increase the price of petrol?

Mr. Skinner: That is sharper than Jenkins.

The Prime Minister: It remains to be seen whether the alleged increases will stick. I doubt whether they will, but of course the petrol companies have one problem—the changing value of the pound in relation to the dollar. Although the price of petrol can fall in terms of dollars, it can increase in terms of pounds because of the change in the value.

Value for Money Audits

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister whether she will extend the role of value for money audits within the public sector.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has tabled new clauses to the Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill, which provide for value for money audits in nationalised industries.

Mr. Eggar: Given the massive subsidy from the taxpayer to the nationalised industries, is it not right that both the Government and the country should be certain that the maximum care is being taken about the way in which that money is spent? Is it not vital that the House should ensure that the financial auditors of the nationalised industries are able to carry out value for money audits?

The Prime Minister: It is important that value for money audits should be carried out. It is probably better that they should be carried out by the nationalised industries' own auditors, who are very well equipped to do them. It would not help anyone—and least of all the overheads—if those industries were subject to several different audits by several different people. I believe that the amendments that have been tabled will meet my hon. Friend's concern and that of most right hon. and hon. Members.

Secondary Education (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about secondary education in Scotland.
One of my main concerns since coming into office has been to advance a development programme designed to introduce radical new arrangements for the curriculum and assessment of all 14 to 16-year-olds at school in Scotland, building on the recommendations of the Munn and Dunning reports published in 1977. I gave full details of our programme in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) on 31 March 1980
I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the sterling efforts of all those who have taken on the burden of the development work since then and who have ensured the success of the programme. The results of their work were fully reported in the consultative paper "The Munn and Dunning Reports: Framework for Decision", which I published in September last year. I received several hundred comments upon that paper and I am very grateful for the time and thought which was put into them. The respondents overwhelmingly supported the principle of the introduction of the arrangements proposed in the paper. I have considered their comments and I have decided to implement the new system along the following lines.
I believe that the eight modes of study proposed by the Munn committee provide a curriculum framework which all schools should adopt, taking account of the particular needs of each school and its pupils. Within this framework all pupils should study English, mathematics and science, and there will be considerable scope for pupil choice of other subjects. I accept the Dunning committee's proposal for one certificate for all pupils based on the three levels of syllabus of foundation, general and credit. Pupils will be assessed against performance standards related to the syllabuses they are studying. Practical skills will be assessed internally at all levels where appropriate and internal assessment will also be used for other aspects of the syllabus of the new foundation level courses. In the light of further experience of the use of internal assessment for certification purposes, I shall at a later date review the place of internal assessment in relation to all three syllabus levels. My aim in any such review will be to maintain and indeed raise standards at all levels.
My consultative paper last autumn set out a four-year implementation programme covering most of the subjects in the school curriculum. Several respondents commented that this was too slow. In view of this evident enthusiasm to proceed more quickly and in order to minimise the transitional period, I have therefore decided to implement the new system in three years rather than four. This will be done by bringing into the third year of the programme all those subjects originally planned for the fourth. In addition to these changes, I have decided to introduce German at all three syllabus levels and to introduce Italian, Russian and Spanish at general and credit levels in the third year.
One important aspect of implementation is the resources available to support the programme. In the consultative paper we stated that the implementation programme and other priority calls on staffing could be carried out with overall national staffing about 4 to 5 per cent. over the basic levels set out in what is familiarly

known as the red book. I remain of the view that staffing at about this level will be sufficient once the implementation programme has been completed. Nevertheless, I recognise that there will be an extra burden upon teachers during the transitional period, particularly now that we have speeded up the programme. I intend therefore to provide for staffing of about 5 to 6 per cent. over red book levels, excluding the probationer allowance, during the implementation period. I shall also be willing to consider applications by education authorities for reductions in the secondary school year in-service training and syllabus development related to implementation. We will continue to support the programme through secondments of development officers, which have been very successful in previous work.
The comments I received from bodies representing parents emphasised the need to ensure that parents fully understand and are fully consulted about the new arrangements. I appreciate the anxieties which parents will have, particularly if their children are in the third and fourth years of secondary education during the implementation period. The new arrangements will be widely publicised and explained to parents, children and employers.
Details of our plans are set out in a circular which my Department is sending to education authorities today, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I hope to make further announcements in the course of the summer.
The Munn and Dunning committees recommended major changes in secondary education. Our plans offer all pupils for the first time a common curriculum structure and courses suitable for all levels of ability leading to a single certificate for all. The implementation programme is a major undertaking and I do not underestimate the heavy burden of work still to be done, but I am confident from the comments I have received that all involved are anxious to set about the task and will ensure that it will succeed. Together with the programme recently announced in "16–18s in Scotland: An Action Plan", this reform will bring about major improvements in the education of all young people in Scotland.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Secretary of State has made an important statement, but not all its details are clear. I make no particular complaint about that, because we are dealing with a complex subject. Nevertheless, we shall want to debate the statement and its implications.
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the hard work which many people have put into the various studies and so on that have been carried out during the past few years in relation to Munn and Dunning. I am particularly happy about the success of the work done on foundation courses. I attached particular importance to that, and—to be fair—the present Government have also done so. However, we are not very happy about certain aspects of what has happened in the past few years and a Labour Government would want to review the whole of the programme that the Secretary of State has announced today.
There is a considerable danger, particularly if adequate resources are not made available—and judging by the statement they will not be—that we shall have three separate syllabuses in our secondary schools and three separate and different levels of examination, and


therefore, there is a danger that we shall re-establish something like a three-tier system within the comprehensive structure. The dangers of that worry us more than anything else.
Will the Secretary of State say something more about the three syllabuses? Are there to be syllabuses each with different contents, or, alternatively, are they to be basically common syllabuses aiming for different levels of attainment and with different emphasis placed on them, or are they to be something in between? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the overlap between one syllabus and the other? The Under-Secretary of State has in recent years attached more importance to differentiation than to overlap, but overlap is much more important, particularly if pupils are to be able to transfer from one course to another. In that context, perhaps the Secretary of State would confirm that he intends that an individual pupil should be able to take different subjects at different levels, with different examination prospects in mind.
On the subject of examinations, is it not a misnomer to talk about assessment for all, in the sense that that means that every pupil leaving school will have some kind of certificate? Some pupils will not do so, and if one accepts the importance of certificates, they will be even more disadvantaged than those who at present do not have certificates. Moreover, I doubt whether a certificate that says "course completed" will prove to be of much value to pupils who obtain it at the end of their school career.
Is there not a difference between a foundation course that is good for the motivation of pupils taking it, and the argument that because the course is good for motivation the examination will be equally good for motivation? Is it not true that what damages motivation more than anything else in schools at present is the appalling amount of youth unemployment, and that until we do something about that, all these problems of motivation are basically insoluble?
There are many other matters to which we shall want to return in the debate, such as internal assessment, the relationship between foundation examinations and general examinations on the one hand, and between the general and credit levels on the other hand, and the relationship between these proposals today and what is proposed for the 16 to 18 age group.
May I ask the Secretary of State a question about resources? Does he accept that what he said today is completely phoney? He said that at teacher level he will provide for red book standards plus 5 to 6 per cent. in total. Is it not true that at present, according to his own statistical bulletin, the education authority schools in Scotland already employ red book standards plus 5·8 per cent? Thus, what the right hon. Gentleman now recommends would be a reduction in the existing standards in secondary schools in Scotland. Indeed, it is far less than the improvement that will be required if the programme that he has set out is to have any prospect of achievement.
Finally, unless the resources are provided in schools—clearly the Secretary of State does not intend to provide them—the whole programme will be completely hamstrung, and we shall end up with an education system, in terms of both courses and examinations, which will represent a deterioration of the present arrangements, instead of the improvement that we all want.

Mr. Younger: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning of his remarks, and I am glad

that he paid tribute to the many people whose work led to these changes, not least Principal Dunning and Dr. Munn, who started the process during the time when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has the right to decide to review the programme, but perhaps he will forgive me for saying that by the time he comes into office the programme will have been running for many years, so possibly it will be ready for review by that time.
The right hon. Gentleman's questions about syllabus levels are best answered by explaining a little more clearly what the system involves. Basically, in future any pupil will be able to take any of these subjects at any of the three levels. Each pupil will be able to build up a programme, or course, for himself which may include a number of different subjects at different levels. A pupil will generally take not a particular level of course but a course that is suitable for his wishes and abilities, which may be very different. That answers the right hon. Gentleman's question in part. I confirm that pupils will take different subjects at different levels.
That leads to the question about the certificate for all. After the reforms have come fully into effect, it will still be possible for pupils to leave school with no certificate, if they fail to satisfy any level in any subject of these exams. That is possible, and no doubt a few pupils will leave school without certificates. However, this programme gives pupils of all abilities a wide opportunity to undertake a course in which they can produce a fair result. That is the great advantage of the new system over the present arrangements, in which there is not enough flexibility for pupils who have different abilities in different subjects. So I think that the vast majority of pupils will leave school with a certificate after this reform is complete.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about examinations as a motivation. However, pupils must have a goal to achieve if they are to feel rewarded and motivated to undertake courses at any level. Therefore, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman if he is suggesting—I am not sure whether he did—that the whole idea of an exam at the end of these courses is wrong. I do not agree with that. There will be a proper examination of these courses, and pupils will have to satisfy that examination if they are to be clearly recorded as having completed the course satisfactorily.
Finally, what the right hon. Gentleman said about resources is not correct. At present, we allow about 4 to 5 per cent. above so-called red book standards as standards in the provision for school education. We did this in recent years because this reform was on the way, building up to implementaton, which I hope is now about to begin. We are now adding to that in two ways. First, I have agreed, notwithstanding that, to raise this provision to between 5 and 6 per cent. above red book standards. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman may have noticed in my statement, I am prepared to consider requests from authorities for a reduction in the number of days in the school year to ease the implementation period. In fact, a reduction of one day in the school year is equivalent to an increase of about 0·5 per cent. in the provision above red book standards. So there is a real increase in resources, albeit fairly modest, to help to deal with this situation, and I am sure that it will be successful.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not debating this matter today. Any hon. Member that I call should seek further illumination on this statement. Any other debate will be on another occasion.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, despite the expected ideological objections from the Opposition, his scheme will be warmly welcomed in Scotland as a bold and imaginative advance in secondary education? Will he, however, understand the importance of keeping parents informed, since the most likely factor to undermine the parental involvement that we have created in our legislation during the past three years is a system that parents do not adequately understand?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is an extremely important advance in secondary education, and it will transform the position for all pupils in future. We expect a major exercise in making sure that both parents and pupils are fully informed about what is available.

Mr. J. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State say a further word about history? I take it that there is no intention of downgrading the teaching of history, and that it will still be an important part of secondary education. Also, there is the matter of writing essays. Some teachers are worried that it is to be discounted.

Mr. Younger: No, there is no intention to change the priority of history or, indeed, of any other subject. I cannot remember whether it comes in the first or second year, but it is well to the fore. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about the writing of essays. Possibly the fact that English is firmly included as one of the foundation subjects is as good a guarantee of that as one could get.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is it really wise to announce such a fundamental change in Scottish education so soon before a change in Government? Does the Secretary of State agree that two essentials in the success of any change are, first, adequate resources and, second, not just an understanding but an acceptance of the new system by employers and parents? Does he accept that many authorities already have better than red book standards? So he is not announcing anything new for most authorities. Will he tell us what he will do to ensure that employers and parents understand and accept the new system rather than are just made aware of it?

Mr. Younger: As for acceptance of the system, the vast majority of the comments that we have had upon the proposals which we circulated have been strongly in favour of them. Indeed, a large number of the representations we received urged us to implement the changes more quickly and, as I have said today, that we are now able to do. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that acceptance of this by everyone—teachers, parents and everybody else—is exceedingly important. If we all put a great deal of effort into making sure that everyone is well informed that will be achieved. There is at present an excess over red book standards provided not only by the Government but even more so by some local authorities. None of this removes the need for local authorities to use in the most economic way they can the teachers that they have available. That is something that some of the

authorities have not yet got down to. This announcement does not alter that. It means that extra resources will be given.
On the desirability of making this announcement before a change of Government, I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I expect the same change to take place. The change that I would expect some time within the next 18 months will make no difference whatever to this policy.

Sir Hector Monro: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a most important statement on Scottish education which will keep it in the van in the United Kingdom for years to come. Will he give two assurances: first, that financial resources will be available for any additional changes required and, secondly, that the consultations with parents will be meaningful and will not be carried out in the same way as some of the consultations relative to school closures in recent years?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am most grateful to him for the welcome he expressed to these most important changes. The extra resources that we are making available will enable changes to be made, no doubt with much extra work for many people as a result. We shall review the matter and make sure that there continue to be adequate resources. Finally, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that much effort will need to be put into explaining the changes to make sure that everyone is fully aware of them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In relation to the point in his opening statement about third year Spanish, has the Minister received the recommendations from the Heriot-Watt department of linguistics about the teaching of Spanish in Scottish schools, bearing in mind that in my constituency the only teacher of Spanish, Ian Grant, is frantically having to learn German to remain qualified for an acceptable subject? In the light of what the Secretary of State has said, where will the resources come form?

Mr. Younger: We have indeed had quite a number of representations about the shortage of teachers in some subjects, one of them being, I think, the subject mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. This is a long-standing problem. We will do all that we can to put right such shortages. As for the changes, it is a matter of adapting the teachers we have to a new system of teaching. That is what everyone will concentrate upon.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that the success of this upheaval in Scottish education will depend crucially on the ability of the teachers in the classrooms to give effect to its purposes and that the resources will have to be considerably greater than he has envisaged? Would he care to put a cash figure on the additional resources that he would expect to be made available in the first year of implementation?

Mr. Younger: I would not, without notice, give a precise cash figure. I think that I have made it clear that real extra resources are being made available. In particular, the ability of local education authorities to apply for a reduction in the school year represents a considerable amount of extra resources if the time saved is used to good effect in bringing the programme to fruition.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely and warmly


welcomed, assuming that he will continue to provide more money per pupil and better pupil-teacher ratios? Does he accept that this is important not only for the improvement of the quality of education in Scotland but for the way in which it will tackle one of the root problems of youth unemployment? Will he ensure that employers understand that the certificates that will be issued will be of value, which I do not think all of them fully appreciate?

Mr. Younger: I am sure that those in education in Scotland will welcome the changes. Pupil-teacher ratios are at the best level ever. I agree with my hon. Friend about making sure that the changes are understood. I should also have made it clear that it is equally important that the changes should he known to employers as well as to teachers and pupils.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State address himself to the Red Book figures and the spurious point that he is making about the provision being in excess of the Red Book figures? Will he give the range for Scotland, not the average figure? Will local authorities that require additional resources, because, one hopes of the relationship with expanding industry, be given the resources? Additionally, will he give an assurance that the incentives that the reform provides for pupils will not be dissipated into disillusionment because no jobs are available for them at the end of the day?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but the resources that are being made available are additional to what we have already provided. There may be people who would like to see even more resources made available, but there is a considerable amount of extra resources here which can be made use of. As for motivation, which is I think the hon. Gentleman's latter point, it is true that it is depressing for young people if they cannot get jobs when they leave school or university. These changes are a major step towards equipping young people more effectively to be able to take up jobs when they leave school. That is surely to be welcomed by everybody.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing phoney about courses that equip young people for the world as it really is? The practical skills element in the new courses is of value. The important thing to recognise is that many children are not as academically inclined as schools might wish; consequently they are not motivated when they are at school. If the practical element is accepted outside by industry, employers and parent, it will be very welcome to those who matter—the children.

Mr. Younger: One of the great difficulties that we try to surmount is that the examination system is beyond the abilities of a depressingly large number of pupils. Because of the change, a much larger number of pupils will find that examinations are within their abilities because they can tailor the subjects and syllabus to the level that they are competent to reach. This should lead to more better qualified children leaving our schools.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the three hon. Members who have been standing and then the Front Bench to conclude.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Returning to the questions put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

South (Mr. Ancram), will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will encourage local authorities to meet the school councils and the parent-teacher associations to publicise and explain the complex matters to which he has referred? Will he at the same time join me in deploring the absence of the Scottish National party from the Chamber on an occasion when an important statement is being made on Scottish education?

Mr. Younger: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. I would not have thought that there was anything unusual about the absence of the Scottish National party from Scottish debates.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first point. I hope that local education authorities and officials will make a special point of meeting school councils and other bodies to make the changes more widely known.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that maximum freedom of choice will be given to parents and pupils on course choice instead of pupils being subjected to premature selection and rejection, which would be a denial of equality of opportunity of education? On the matter of resources, in view of the fact that hundreds of young qualified teachers in Scotland are in the dole queue when their skills could be used to teach pupils in third, fourth and further years in secondary schools, is this not a terrible indictment of a Tory regime headed by a guiser of a Secretary of a State for Scotland who is a product of the English public school system at Winchester?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his graceful compliment to my schooling achievements—which were modest indeed, as he would no doubt agree. I note his new role as a champion of freedom of choice—not something that I had associated with him in the past.
On the serious point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I assure him that having three different levels of course in each subject will give each pupil a more flexible way to build up a course suitable for him or her. I hope very much that that will mean that many more pupils can undertake examinations that will be of benefit to them.

Mr. Canavan: What about the teachers on the dole?

Mr. Younger: There is some provision for additional teachers, which will no doubt be welcome.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this may be the last question today, but that it is by no means the last question on this issue? Will he assure the House that among the resources that he intend to allocate there is provision for educational technology, such as micro and computer development, so that our educational system will have some relevance to the industrial world that the youngsters will have to face?

Mr. Younger: You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for me to decide whether this is the last question. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I agree about the necessity of bearing in mind the subjects that he mentioned, and especially computer science. As you know, it is a relatively new development that the subject is being examined at O-level. We are considering the possibility of bringing it into the new system as soon as possible.

Mr. Milian: On resources, and especially teachers, will the Secretary of State confirm what he must know to


be true—it was contained in his statistical bulletin published in January—that currently the teachers in Scottish secondary schools are red book plus 6·7 per cent? That is a correction to my earlier figure of 5·8 per cent. Therefore, if the education authorities were to employ only teachers in secondary schools on the levels outlined in the statement, far from increasing the number of teachers, they would have to reduce them.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct that a number of authorities employ more teachers than is laid down in the red book standards, or red book standards plus 4 to 5 per cent. as laid down by the Government. I have been pressing those authorities for some time to use their resources more effectively. They are over-supplied with teachers. Nothing that has been said this afternoon alters the need for local education authorities to use their teachers more effectively and to bring them within the resources that they can afford. However, the provisions that the Government can make—that is the basis of all that the authorities do, and if they employ more staff, they must provide for that—will be increased. An additional amount may be available if local authorities wish to apply for it in a reduction in the number of days in the school year during the implementation period.
Those are real gestures towards the undoubted amount of additional work that teachers will have to do to implement these exciting new changes. These are important changes and a major step in Scottish education. It is clear from our consultations that the vast majority of the teaching profession is thoroughly enthusiastic about the changes, and will make them work well.

Citizens Advice Bureaux

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the action I have taken on the grant-in-aid to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
I am glad to do this, since we are discussing an organisation that fulfils an important national and local role—one which the Government fully support. I feel that I must make that absolutely clear. We have the fullest confidence in the citizens advice bureau movement as a whole. It is a fine example of volunteers and professionals working together for the good of the community.
Our support has been shown by the rapid increase in this Government's funding. In 1979–80 it was £1·85 million; in 1980–81, £4·02 million; £4·91 million in 1981–82; £5·75 million in 1982–83, and now £6·04 million in 1983–84.
That money does not go directly to the local bureaux, which receive some £10 million from local authorities; the Government grant goes to NACAB, the central body, and is used to finance a range of support services for all bureaux.
But increases of that order can have disadvantages, and I felt it proper to inquire if the money was being used effectively. I started looking at this in June last year. I may say that one of the difficulties that NACAB freely admitted to me is that it has been without a permanent director from April 1982 to February 1983.
That is one aspect that has concerned me. The other has been allegations of changing attitudes within some CABs and the taking up of campaigns that some people have seen as going outside the generally accepted scope of the service. For example, a local chairman resigned recently after 30 years in the service out of disgust at what was happening in his area—[Interruption.] No, it was not—and of course I asked NACAB to look into that.
I am glad to say NACAB now has a permanent director, and I welcome that. In my letter to the chairman on 21 March I said that I was not sure whether the present level of grant was correct and that I intended to authorise a six month grant with a review thereafter. In that context I said I would expect the association to tell me in good time before the middle of the year how it is dealing with the various matters I have raised with the association. To ensure that the money is being effectively used I have proposed, with the full support of the association itself, an early and independent review of its staffing and efficiency. It has also agreed to draft guidelines on the need for impartiality and avoiding activities that can be seen as politically motivated.
My aim throughout has been to endorse and support the giving of accurate and impartial advice and information when it is needed and to ensure that the considerable sums of public money are put to the best use. Those steps have absolutely nothing to do with the current CND campaign and were first mooted by me some months ago. I hope that the House will accept that these steps are simply a prudent exercise of responsibility.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House will welcome what the Minister said about his confidence in the CAB. For the avoidance of all doubt, will he confirm


that he is aware of the great service that that movement has rendered for more than 40 years in providing help and guidance for those who do not have knowledgeable friends and who cannot afford constant professional advice? Has not the movement provided that with a high proportion of volunteer help?
Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that vague insinuations of the sort that have emerged over the weekend are grossly unfair and damaging? If he was withholding grant in consequence of any complaints about the conduct either of the national association or of any specific bureau, would it not be elementary that those allegations should have been made known to them, specifically and in detail, so that they could have an opportunity to answer them?
I wish to ask three specific questions. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the money available for the grant represents money saved on the discontinuance of the former grant for consumer advice centres, which were destroyed by the Government?
Secondly, will he confirm that the one instance which he cites of the resignation of a local chairman is a case in which the chairman asked for a vote of confidence by his own local committee, which was not forthcoming, and that that incident has already been the subject of an investigation?
Finally, after hearing from the association about any outstanding complaints, will the Minister either arrange for a proper investigation by an impartial investigator or withdraw all these allegations clearly and publicly?

Dr. Vaughan: I can assure the right hon. and learned Member that I am well aware of the great service that this organisation gives. I hope that my opening remarks made quite clear not only our appreciation of what it does but the fact that it is an extremely valuable service for a great many people who are in great need.
I should also like to assure the House that there has been no cut whatsoever. The grant is running at the same rate. All I have suggested is that it would be sensible to review the allocation of the money and the management of the central organisation after six months, and I have linked this very closely with the appointment of the new director and the review that I referred to in my statement.
When it comes to individual complaints and investigations, I really do not think that it is for me to go into detail on various statements that are made about the running of the organisation.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Why raise them then?

Dr. Vaughan: I think that it is the proper function of the organisation to run its own affairs and to reassure me, the House and the public generally that those affairs are properly conducted and that there is no substance in the various allegations that have been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "What allegations?"]

Mr. David Crouch: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that many of us regard his criticisms of the CABs as almost an insinuation that they are not doing an effective job? May I say to him, if he is not aware of the situation regarding the CABs across the whole country, that in my view they do an invaluable job in explaining Government policy at all levels of Government activity and also in making people aware of the benefits

and Government help that are available to them, which they might not otherwise discover? They are of enormous help in the process and progress of democracy in this country and I hope that my hon. Friend will do nothing to discourage their activities and progress in this field.

Dr. Vaughan: I am very glad to confirm the importance of the service, to which my hon. Friend has just drawn attention. I think that is shown by the steady increase in Government funding which has taken place in recent years and which last year I recommended.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that this is a flimsy trail of insubstantial gossip, a mean-minded harassment of people who achieve a high ratio of public good compared to public cost—a level which is undreamt of in his Department? Will he, instead of asking the House to rely upon one solitary example of the resignation of somebody who entered the CAB service in the very different world of 30 years ago, enlighten the House as to who is to conduct this review, how it is to be done and whether it is to be accompanied by a stream of similar publicity?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I should ask Rossminster to look at it.

Dr. Vaughan: If I may take the last point first, the review will be undertaken either by management consultants—

Mr. George Foulkes: What will the fee be?

Dr. Vaughan: —or by our own staff inspection services. I shall, of course, be consulting NACAB on this before finally deciding. The important point, I would suggest, is that the investigation be completed quickly and thoroughly. I am confident that it will be of real value to the service as a whole. I do not accept the other remarks which the hon. Member made.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has the Minister read this week's edition of The Sunday Times, which says—I quote the words—
The Minister said there was anxiety in his constituency that Joan Ruddock was using public money given to the CAB to subsidise CND activity"?
Is that not yet another smear on the CND—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is a lie.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stirling, who sits there shouting from a sedentary position, will withdraw that remark at once. He said, "It is a lie," and he must withdraw it.

Mr. Canavan: I am not the hon. Member for Stirling, Mr. Speaker; I am the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. I did not say that the Minister or anybody else in this House was lying. I said that what was said in the press was a lie.

Mr. Speaker: As long as the hon. Member makes it clear to the House, as he has, that he is not making a charge of any sort that anyone in this Chamber is telling a lie, the matter will, of course, drop.

Mr. Allaun: Is this not yet another smear both on the CND and on Mrs. Ruddock, a woman of the utmost integrity?
Finally, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as I understand it, legal opinion is today being sought on what would appear to be a serious libel by both the Minister and The Sunday Times?

Dr. Vaughan: Clearly, I am not responsible for the content of a particular article. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you say it?"] I was not consulted about the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred before it appeared. I was not contacted at all about it.

Mr. Allaun: Did you say it?

Dr. Vaughan: The article is totally inaccurate in that it states that a cut has been made. No cut has been made. I have said on a number of occasions since that the actions I have taken have absolutely nothing to do with Mrs. Ruddock and the CND movement.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Did you say it?

Dr. Vaughan: It is correct that a complaint was put to me at one stage, which I passed on to the chairman of NACAB. She gave me an assurance that there was no substance in this and I accepted her word.

Mr. Allaun: They are your constituents.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly as far as my constituency is concerned, the CAB does an enormous amount of very good and valuable work? Certainly I have never heard any suggestion of political bias during the years that I have represented the constituency. May I ask him what, if any, specific details of the complaints he received, and in particular what, if any, specific proposals for change he put to NACAB before making public the fact that he was withholding half its grant?

Dr. Vaughan: First of all, I did not make this public. I thought that the funding was a matter for the national association to deal with. At the time I linked it very clearly indeed with the appointment of the new director and the anticipated review to which I have referred. I am very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has referred to the important work that his local bureau is doing, because the majority of bureaux—and for all I know all the bureaux—are doing extremely good work, and I give them great credit for this.
When it comes to individual allegations, I have had between 30 and 40 complaints of various kinds. The majority of them were put to me as information which it was thought proper to give to me, but I was asked not to involve local people. This is something which I respect. I have made quite clear and will make clear again, if necessary, the general nature of the allegations. All I am seeking from the organisation is an assurance that improper activities are not taking place, would not be countenanced and will not take place.

Mr. Tom McNally: Is the Minister aware that to start talking about 30 or 40 anonymous accusations in the light of an organisation of the scope and scale of the citizens advice bureaux, which deal directly with the public, is a pathetic justification for the severe damage that he has done to the organisation? Will he make a statement now that he expects local authorities to continue their support for the citizens advice bureaux, and

that none should consider his activity a green light for political sniping against the organisation? Will he make it clear also that this is not yet another act by the Government against organisations or people who are not in tune with the Government's philosophy and thinking of the sort that has happened elsewhere, and give an assurance that a witch hunt is not taking place? It is intolerable that the NACAB should have to draw guidelines while public money is being withheld, so that the implication to be drawn is that the guidelines will have to be acceptable to the Minister and his colleagues.

Dr. Vaughan: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about local authorities. I hope that they will continue to support the organisation and, where appropriate, increase their support. The organisation does extremely good work. I can only repeat that this is not a witch hunt of any sort. I do not think that the House would feel that I was doing my job properly—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are not."]—if I did not convey complaints that were brought to me. That I intend to do, now and in future. I have the greatest confidence in the citizens advice bureau movement. I have said that a number of times. I hope that the movement will be able to say, "The work that we carry out is entirely proper and there is no political slant to it." It and I agree that the advice and information should be impartial, objective and accurate.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Minister aware that, instead of this trail of red herrings about the lack of a permanent director and the resignation of a local chairman, a full withdrawal and a reasonable apology would have minimised the damage from his point of view? In the absence of a withdrawal and reasonable apology, will he recognise that the House, on an issue of principle as important as this, will never tolerate a Minister taking action which has about it a whiff of McCarthyism?

Dr. Vaughan: rose—

Mr. Canavan: Withdraw.

Dr. Vaughan: I cannot accept the implication of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). The context in which he has used them is entirely misleading. I have not intended any slur on the citizens advice bureau movement. If I had done so, I would of course apologise. I think that the House would expect me to exercise proper responsibility over how large sums of public money are allocated and would expect me to seek from the movement an assurance that the advice that is given is impartial, accurate, informative and objective.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend accept that his ready acceptance some weeks ago of the invitation to visit the excellent Peterborough citizens advice bureau tomorrow morning was received by that organisation as a measure of his support for it?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is Irish.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my hon. Friend aware that when he visits the bureau tomorrow morning he will be accorded the friendship that one normally affords to supporters of the organisation that he has supported today?

Dr. Vaughan: I very much welcome those remarks. I am looking forward immensely to the visit tomorrow morning, as I have been for some time.

Mr. David Ennals: Did the Minister say, or did he not, that he had been seeking to ascertain for some time how NACAB spent its money? If he did say that, why did he say it, bearing in mind that he has a representative on the national committee and the council of NACAB? Will he give the House just one reason why he has dragged this extraordinarily efficient and effective service and organisation into the political arena? In view of the appalling replies that he has given today, will he consider at least his resignation?

Dr. Vaughan: I certainly do not accept the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's demands. I have not dragged the organisation into the political arena. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was your decision."] Many of the remarks that have been made following my statements have had no substance in truth and I have not been associated with them.

Mr. David Winnick: Not much.

Dr. Vaughan: Of course, I have had information on how the money is spent in the ordinary auditing. I have been seeking a discussion on how funds are allocated, where priorities lie and what are seen as the most important needs for Government funding. I think that hon. Members will feel that that is an entirely proper function.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, instead of having a good parliamentary row, it might be more sensible to refer to his remarks in the debate that took place in May 1982, in which he gave support to the work of the citizens advice bureaux? Does he recognise that there is unanimous support in the House for the support that local citizens advice bureaux receive from the national association, and that the result of the review will be that further funding after September will be agreed before the last moment so that the organisation can continue to provide effective help for our constituents, and often to Members of Parliament?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes. I very much welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I think that it is important for a body of the size of NACAB to know where it stands over its funds so that it can make proper plans for future spending.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to call four more hon. Members from each side of the House before we move on to other matters. That will be a very good run.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are in danger of forgetting that the Government have done a great deal for the citizens advice bureaux, and that his statement is something of a slight departure from the normal benign influence that he has had on these matters in the recent past? May I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) has said, that it is extremely important that we recognise that an early announcement should be made by my hon. Friend about continous funding—not six-month funding—to prevent this issue from becoming controversial, politically and otherwise, over the next few months, which will not be advisable in the interests of the CABs, the House or himself?

Dr. Vaughan: I think that there should be an end to any controversy over this issue. It is clear that there has been a number of misunderstandings. However, it is in no one's

interests, least of all those of the service, to have the sort of comments being made about it which have been expressed recently. I accept very much what my hon. Friend has said—[Interruption.]—and I welcome his remarks.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the Minister aware that I welcome his quick response to the early-day motion that stands in my name on today's Order Paper? Is he aware that he has turned on its head the old proverb that to name one example is not to produce proof? He has referred to 30 or 40 allegations, when there are 850 local citizens advice bureaux. Surely he is seeking, in an entirely arbitrary fashion, to emasculate the organisation and to cut off the funds of the bureaux through NACAB in September. In so doing he has wreaked uncertainty throughout the movement, which performs such sterling service for all Britain's citizens. In view of the Minister's most unsatisfactory statement, I shall be grateful if he will now withdraw his allegation and restore the funding until at least the next financial year.

Dr. Vaughan: I do not agree with one word of what the hon. Gentleman has just said in trying to make a political point. I refute his allegations and draw the attention of the House to the considerable figures to which I referred when talking about the funding of the organisation, and the remarks that I made at the beginning of my statement, which I hope will be widely appreciated, about the importance of the service.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Does the Minister accept that, if he has a suspicion that all is not well in the financial and administrative sphere of CABs, he is correct to insist on some kind of inquiry? Does he accept equally that, if he suspects that some CABs have been inclined to introduce a leavening of politics into the advice that they give, it will do no harm to make that matter public? Will he accept, finally, that many of us on this side of the House are stout supporters of the CABs because of the great work that they do for the less-well-off people and that among those who are at the forefront of the CABs in my constituency there are relatively few, it seems to me, who are either members of the Labour party or supporters of CND?

Dr. Vaughan: It would be difficult to find a stronger supporter of CABs than myself. I am a great admirer of the work they do. I concluded my remarks on the review by saying that I am confident that it will be of real value to the service as a whole.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does the Minister agree that, whatever the words he has used today, his actions will have brought great concern to CABs throughout the length and breadth of this country? Does he accept that by judging them in advance and cutting their finances he has passed a judgment on their standing and how they are looked on by the public? The Minister has said also that he believes that the funds should be spent properly. Could he explain why, under his administration, the tribunal assistance unit which is used in connection with industrial tribunals in Sunderland has had to close because of a shortfall of some £30,000, in spite of an appeal to him by the chairman of the regional office of the industrial tribunals? The chairman said that that boy, representing applicants at tribunals, saved a great deal of his staff's time and a great deal of public money and in


many cases stopped hearings even having to be made, thus saving public money again. If the Minister is so worried about how money is being spent, why has he allowed that unit to close?

Dr. Vaughan: I do not think that the funding of other kinds of bodies is relevant to what we are discussing. I made it clear to the House that, far from my cutting the funds—the hon. Gentleman has used that expression again and he knows that it is not the case now—the funds available to the organisation have been increased. I see no reason why the funds should be reduced. It seems to me a proper thing to say to an organisation when it is having a major change in its management, "Let us guarantee you half the year's figures and then see whether that is the right amount for your needs."

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need for an early decision about the second £3 million, since otherwise the quality of advice given by the national association to the 800 local offices could be prejudiced?

Mr. McNally: Do it now, yes.

Mr. Hicks: Is the Minister aware that in Devon and Cornwall the 100,000 people who each year seek advice from the 40 local bureaux would consider it an insult if it were suggested that the volunteers who man those local offices are in any way politically motivated or that the advice that they are given is politically biased?

Dr. Vaughan: I agree with my hon. Friend when he talks about the urgent need to have any inquiry completed. I have every confidence, and I have been assured already by NACAB, which welcomes this review, that it will cooperate fully. We are discussing the central organisation. We are not discussing, as my hon. Friend said, the administration of the local bureaux. I endorse what he said about the valuable job that they do locally.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Did the Minister or did he not make the statements about the misuse of funds by Mrs. Ruddock which were quoted earlier today?

Dr. Vaughan: No, I have never implied that there was any misuse of funds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you say it?"] An inquiry was put to me as to how someone who was thought to be a fully-paid whole-time employee was able—

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Part-time.

Dr. Vaughan: —who was thought to be wholetime—was at that time able to devote so much attention to other things. I simply passed that inquiry on. It was an inquiry, not a complaint, on my part. I was fully satisfied by the answer that the chairman gave me.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of the sterling work done by the CABs in Berkshire, will my hon. Friend accept my delight at his reassurance that there is no suspicion in his mind of any link between the CABs and CND? In view of his most recent remarks, I welcome his view that Mrs. Ruddock has performed her duties with the CAB with remarkable zeal. She is my constituent and I should wish him to know that in my opinion she would never let her zeal for the CND affect her work for the bureaux in any way.

Dr. Vaughan: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I have never implied that there was any connection between the CAB movement and the CND movement.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that the CABs in Swindon and elsewhere provide a great public service at reasonable cost? He will have to do much better than he has done today if he is to convince them and the national association that the CABs are not being victimised because of a narrow, bigoted, party political vendetta that he is pursuing against Mrs. Ruddock—who happens to work in the CAB in Reading, part of which he purports to represent. The only way that he can convince the House that he has not embarked upon such a vendetta is to apologise now and to restore the £6 million immediately.

Mr. Canavan: And resign.

Dr. Vaughan: I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is persisting in this kind of allegation, when I have already assured the House that it is utterly unfounded and has not come from me.

Mr. John Fraser: This unhappy episode has the Prime Minister's fingerprints all over it. We should be interested to know the extent to which the Prime Minister's Office has been consulted or involved in these matters. We have had more than half an hour's questions and it has not resulted in one substantiated imputation or criticism against NACAB, despite the fact that the Department has a representative on the management committee. Having slaughtered the consumer advice centres, the Government are now embarrassed, not by any kind of political campaign, but by the impartiality of the citizens advice bureau movement.
I underline also the point which has been put to the Minister by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the degree to which this slur and statement are likely to undermine the support for CABs at local level. With about 900 CABs, one hears of cases where local authorities, as a result of their political prejudice, have not been willing to support them. Does the Minister recognise the extent to which damage can be done at a local level by his statement? Will he issue an immediate circular to all local authorities encouraging them not to stay even but to increase their support for CABs at a local level? No one in the House would deny the Minister's right to demand efficiency but no one in the House can grant him the right to make absolutely unsubstantiated allegations against a well-respected movement. Will he take this last opportunity to withdraw those allegations and give an assurance that the grant will remain untouched and uninterfered with?

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were improper and incorrect. When it comes to slurs, I point out that the majority of the slurs—in fact all the slurs—have come from the Labour Benches. I do not accept that there have been allegations made against this excellent organisation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Utterly incompetent.

Dr. Vaughan: I hope that my remarks, which I have made a number of times, will be seen not as smears against the organisation but as a wholehearted and warm endorsement of what it does.

BILLS PRESENTED

PRISON INDUSTRIES (RESTRAINTS ON SALES)

Mr. Gerrard Neale presented a Bill to limit all manufacturing and assembly work in prisons in the United Kingdom to that solely and directly required for the skill-training and rehabilitation of prisoners unless the production in prisons of any articles for sale to any person has been agreed by the relevant trade association (or if none, the competing firms) and the appropriate trade unions as to the pricing of the articles and the levels of their production: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Mr. George Foulkes, supported by Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Reg Race, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Thomas Cox and Mr. Tom Clarke, presented a Bill to provide that discrimination of an unjustifiable nature against people on the basis of their age shall be illegal; to confer duties on the Equal Opportunities Commission; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

FAIR WAGE

Mr. Michael Meacher, supported by Mr. Stuart Holland, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Mr. John Garrett, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Christopher Price and Mr. Frank Hooley, presented a Bill to provide for the implementation through negotiations between employers and trade unions of a minimum full-time basic wage of £100 per week and related pro-rata wages for part-time workers; to provide financial assistance in certain cases subject to economic audit; and to make other connected provisions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

Children in Secure Accommodation (Scotland)

Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision for children in secure accommodation in Scotland.
Article 5.4 of the European convention on human rights states:
Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest … shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
It is the case that in Scotland anyone arrested on a criminal charge must be brought to court on the first lawful day and may then make an application for bail. When a child is involved and there is a referral by the reporter to the children's panel in terms of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 there are safeguarding provisions in the statute. An order committing a child to a place of safety lasts 21 days and this can be renewed only once.
My concern, however, is with children who are not subject to compulsory measures of care and whose position is very different. These children may have been taken into care on a voluntary basis—under section 15 of the 1968 Act—or parental rights may have been assumed by the local authority under section 16. In such cases there is no statutory requirement to place the case before either a children's hearing or a court to obtain authority for detention in secure accommodation. A child in this position may be locked up—there is no other way to describe it—on the basis of an administrative decision. Such a decision would usually be taken on the advice of the social work staff involved in the child's case.
I have no doubt that those involved in taking these decisions are acting in the interests of the child. I should not wish it to be thought that I am making a criticism of the social workers' professional judgment, but the right of the child legally to challenge his loss of liberty must exist as a safeguard. The lack of any such right is a serious omission from the law of Scotland and is clearly in contravention of article 5.4 of the European convention on human rights.
In Scotland there are about 16,000 children in care or under supervision. About 35 per cent. are in residential care. The most recently available figures show that these are children in assessment centres. The vast majority of these children will be in this type of accommodation as a consequence of panel or court supervision. The number placed by administrative decision must be very small but it is none the less unacceptable. Councillor Morag Morrell of Grampian regional council, who has made a special study of this problem, concluded that in 1980 46 children were in this position.
In England and Wales there was a lengthy debate about a similar loophole in the statute. As a result of pressure from the all-party penal affairs group and the Children's Legal Centre, the law was changed. Section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 inserts an appropriate amendment to the Child Care Act 1980. This provides that a child in care may not be placed in secure accommodation unless certain criteria are met. In general terms these are that the child is likely to abscond and if that happens his physical, mental or moral welfare will be at risk, or if he


is kept elsewhere he is likely to injure himself or others. The Secretary of State can make regulations laying down the maximum period beyond which a child cannot be so detained without the authority of a juvenile court. There is a right of appeal from the juvenile court to the Crown court against any authorisation to detain a child.
To deal with the similar position in Scotland would require an amendment to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Indeed, it might have been more appropriate for me to title my Bill the Social Work (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill. However, that is not so important as achieving the object of plugging the gap in the statute.
My Bill will limit the period for which a child can be held without the authority of a children's hearing. If it is necessary to use secure accommodation, the local authority will have to apply for a hearing through the reporter to the children's panel. This will give the parents and the child an opportunity to object and put their case. The appeal following part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 would be to the sheriff.
I can understand that there may be some social work opposition to my proposals, on the ground that it would add to the complications of the system. I can understand the argument that the best interests of the child are served by decisions best taken by those engaged on the case. My point, and the aim of my Bill, is to insert safeguards and rights into that situation.
Of course there are children in care whose pattern of behaviour, for whatever reasons, makes it impossible for them to live in a normal children's home. Secure accommodation may be the only means of helping them in the short term. If that is the conclusion of all those concerned with the child's case, they must refer that conclusion to a hearing. It will be for the panel to sanction detention in secure accommodation. Any danger of a child being improperly detained and forgotten about will be removed and clear rights established.
My Bill has the support of the Scottish Association of Children's Panels. It informs me that it was under the

impression that the Government would deal with the issues raised by my Bill through amendments to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications [Lords] Bill which is presently proceeding through the House. I hope that it is the Government's intention to act urgently. There is a need to deal quickly with this problem and I believe a need also for a wider examination of child care law in Scotland.
Recently the chairman of the Reporters Association, Mr. Alistair Sinclair, said that there was no room in the panels system for complacency and that serious deficiencies in the law
greatly impede our efforts to help children … We have no consolidating legislation to equate to the English Child Care Act 1980. Our child care law is a jungle, much of it scattered through innumerable acts of Parliament ranging from the 1937 Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act to the 1981 Education (Scotland) Act".
I entirely agree with Mr. Sinclair and I have no wish to add yet another piece of legislation without saying that it is clearly necessary to do so, but his call for a complete review of part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 has my support.
I have sought to outline a case for amending the law on child care in Scotland in a way that will bring it into line with the requirement of article 5.4 of the European Commission on Human Rights. I hope the House will share my view that this is a matter of considerable importance and will support my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Harry Gourlay, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Denis Canavan and Mr. Tom Clarke.

CHILDREN IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Norman Hogg accordingly presented a Bill to make new provision for children in secure accommodation in Scotland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April and to be printed. [Bill 123]

Orders of the Day — Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

Clause 1

THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5 at end add—
`(3A) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any advice relating to the economic and social development of rural areas tendered by the Development Commission under subsection (3) above.'.
Before I deal with the substance of the amendment, I should like to refer to a letter that the Minister has sent me since the Committee stage in which he has generously corrected a slight misrepresentation of the state of the law in relation to loans from the Development Commission to shop properties in rural areas. When the Minister replies to the amendment, will he put on the record of the House what he said in that letter so that we may correct the Committee record and thus leave no doubt about the position? I think that the truth has turned out to be halfway between what I thought it was and what the Minister thought it was. I am quite happy to call quits on that basis.
The amendment is modest and would oblige the Government to publish advice that they receive from the Development Commission relating to the social and economic development of rural areas. I believe that the amendment is now more desirable and more necessary than when I first tabled it a fortnight ago, because in the interval I requested the Library to carry out a trawl of literature and articles on social and economic development in rural areas. Both the Library and I were surprised and mildly distressed to discover how meagre is the available literature on the social and economic development of rural areas. I am increasingly fortified by that experience in suggesting that the amendment will go some way to plug what is at present an obvious gap in the market.
It would appear that those hon. Members who represent rural districts with social and economic problems of development do not share the same compulsion as those of us who represent the urban areas to communictate these problems by way of written article and written pamphlets, but the absence of literature does not imply that there is not a problem of social and economic development in those areas.
Deprivation may have a different meaning in the rural areas from the urban areas, but, nevertheless, it is very real. It is particularly severe in the more remote areas, where the phenomenon of social disintegration has become identified, where there is a decline in population, particularly of young people, and where, as a result of that decline in population, there is a decline in services, be they commercial services or public services such as schools, which in turn leads to a vicious circle as the decline in the services and amenities drives away an even greater proportion of the population and thus reinforces the decline in the services available. I can sympathise with that pattern because, although I represent a different type

of constituency, it has a problem of declining population resulting in a decline in services to local residents, which in turn makes it less attractive as a residential area.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has taken his place for the debate. I recollect that in Committee the hon. Gentleman and I had a mild disagreement of emphasis on the importance of public transport services. After I had berated the Government for endangering public transport services, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the issue was perhaps not of such keen concern to his constituents because most of them had been obliged to purchase private motor cars.
Although the hon. Gentleman and I may have differed in emphasis, we would not differ over the fundamental importance of public transport services for those members of a household who are deprived of the use of a car because another member goes to work. Nor would we disagree that the cost of maintaining private transport to offset the decline in public transport services in rural areas imposes an additional burden on households in rural areas, which are very often on low incomes. Poverty in rural areas is often caused by those on lower incomes having to face the higher costs of coping with the deprivation of living in remote areas.
As an urban dweller, and as one who represents an urban constituency, I must say that one of the fascinating aspects of rural society, when viewed from the strength of labour organisations in the city, is the remarkable contrast between farmers, who last year, according to the Government's White Paper, secured a 45 per cent. increase in income, and farm workers, who secured a 6 per cent. increase and are rightly and properly seeking this year to remedy that position.
The Development Commission is excellently placed to monitor the problems created in the rural areas by issues of social and economic underdevelopment. It is excellently placed to note the problems of poverty and of coping with those higher costs. It is excellently placed to note the decline in public services such as transport and education and to monitor how that affects local communities. It is excellently placed to advise the Government on those issue and those aspects of life in the rural areas.
In Committee we tried to insert into the Bill a provision which would specifically charge the Development Commission with tendering that advice to the Secretary of State. The Minister advised us—I felt at the time that it was paradoxical advice, and I am still of that opinion—that to insert such a specific written instruction would weaken rather than strengthen the right of the Development Commission to do it. As reasonable members of the Committee, we wished to expedite the procedure and we accepted that advice. Nevertheless, having resiled from our original position that we should insert in the Bill a specific charge on the Development Commission to advise the Minister, I think there would be merit for the House to take the precaution to state in the Bill that any such advice must be published.
I could not have hoped for a better curtain raiser to the debate than the exchanges on the preceding statement, which once again demonstrated that we have a Government who are prepared to take a robust view of non-governmental organisations which may offer critical advice and critical statements or may support individuals who make critical statements of the Government. It is to the credit of the Development Commission that it has been


prepared to make statements which could certainly be read as critical of the Government's record on public expenditure as it affects the rural areas.
In Committee the hon. Member for Truro made a shrewd statement which, if he will allow me, I shall share with the House as a whole rather than merely with those who had the misfortune to sit on the Committee. The hon. Member for Truro observed:
One is always suspicious of such organisations"—
organisations appointed by the Government—
because, when it comes to the crunch it is the Minister who appoints those who sit on them. He will not go out of his way to seek out views on the importance of developing services which may be diametrically opposed to the view of the Government of the day."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1983; c. 18]
Whether the Government would go out of their way to seek such advice from the Development Commission on the social and economic development of rural areas is one matter, but it would be an elementary precaution for the House to provide in the Bill that, should the Development Commission, either at the prompting of the Government or on its own initiative, tender to the Government advice that the Government found unpalatable, based perhaps on an investigation and analysis of the effect of Government policy which the Government found embarrassing, it would be prudent for us to ensure that the legislation obliged the Government to publish that advice so that the House would have an opportunity to see it and so that we could use it in our debates in a way that is denied to us at present because of the lack of available literature on the subject.
I therefore propose the amendment as a modest step towards open government. It would provide a greater opportunity for informed debate on the economic and social development problems of rural areas and, knowing as I do that those areas are overwhelmingly represented by Conservative Members, I am sure that they would recognise that it is even more in their interests than in ours to accept this modest step towards open government. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.

5 pm

Mr. David Penhaligon: This is an interesting amendment. It would certainly bring the problems of rural areas to the attention of the House on a regular basis. I have been a Member of Parliament for about eight and a half years, but I recall few occasions on which rural issues as such have been discussed. Ours is an urban dominated society and I realise that that dominance is bound to be reflected in the views expressed here. Nevertheless, given the severity of the problems that many rural areas now face, it is remarkable that so little time is devoted to the subject in this Chamber. Indeed, one suspects that the Government prefer not to have too much discussion of these matters in order to avoid embarrassment to themselves. I do not make that as a party point. Some inner city problems were not discussed as fully as they might have been under the Labour Government, for the same reason. Nevertheless, although my area may be an extreme example, the problems of the rural areas are now such that it is truly remarkable how little time is devoted to them in the Chamber.
Looking at my own area, I sometimes wonder what effect all the years of central government in this country

have had. The economy of Cornwall is based on mining, fishing, farming and tourism. I am not sure whether any Government could claim credit for that. There is mining because we have china clay and tin in the ground. The fishing industry reflects the fact that there are fish in the sea—or there were, until various Governments allowed over-fishing to such an extent that even the mackerel is becoming an endangered species in my area. The farming industry reflects the fact that the soil is fairly fertile, the temperature fairly mild and there is certainly plenty of rain so that the grass grows rapidly. Finally, tourism derives from the fact that the county is extremely beautiful and has a mild climate by United Kingdom standards. That being so, I sometimes wonder what effect Parliament has had on the remoter parts of the country over a long period.
It is noticeable that virtually all the services in my county—I suspect that this applies to most rural areas—are administered elsewhere. To take up a detailed point about health administration in my constituency I have to write to somebody in Bristol. If I wish to take up an issue related to industrial development I have to write to somebody in Plymouth or, more likely, a Minister in London. I am sure that many Members representing rural constituencies are familiar with the phenomenon that the decisions affecting our daily lives are generally taken at some distance from the area. In this context, although I am not greatly optimistic, the Development Commission may help to bring those who make such decisions and those who reflect upon them rather closer to the areas about which they pontificate. Personally, I am inclined to support the amendment as it might help in that respect and direct the attention of Parliament to the unique and specific problems of rural areas.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) referred to a slight disagreement in Committee about transport. To put the record straight, I did not disagree about the importance of public transport. Perhaps I expressed myself badly. I simply said that I wondered whether the traditional subsidised bus service was now the best solution for areas such as mine. I am not against subsidies. Indeed, I could argue for greater public transport subsidies. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said, people who have retired and those who are not old enough to drive are at an enormous disadvantage in the remoter parts of the country. They are trapped in their villages. Often the position is worse than it was 100 years ago. Even my dear and long dead grandmother, who lived in remote Zelah in my constituency, enjoyed a regular pony and trap service into Truro in her young days, which provided a better public transport service than many villages in the area now have.
I have often put this point in debates, and, to be fair, the Government have made some progress. We need a regime of experimentation in transport—with subsidy—to see how the daily problems of those who live in remote areas can best be solved. I had not intended to raise the matter today, but I wish to put the record straight. I am not against subsidising public transport. I simply question whether the standard bus solution is best for some of the remoter parts of the country.
The economy of rural areas is largely overshadowed, by poverty—that is perhaps too strong a word—or at least by low incomes. The really rural areas such as the far south-west, parts of Devon, Cardiganshire and northern Scotland are very low income areas. When speaking at Liberal party meetings out in the sticks, one of the best


ways to bring the audience to attention is to tell them the latest average wage. To my constituents, £150 per week seems incredible. I can tell the Minister that if someone offered my constituents—or, no doubt, those in Cardiganshire and the north of Scotland—jobs at that wage the queue would be so long that it would take him the rest of his life to interview and service all the applications.
In my constituency, £100 per week is regarded as extremely good pay and many people work for much less. I once sponsored a pamphlet by the Low Pay Unit, which carried our a survey of average wage levels in the far south-west. It concluded that the average there was 25 per cent. lower than the national average. In reality, the situation is even worse for many people because those working for the state in its broadest sense—teachers, local government administrators, and so on—are paid more or less the national average for their skill. Thus, the people out in the real world working for those who can pay only what they can afford often receive far lower wages.
I should like the Development Commission to make representations to the Government about, for example, the importance of some wages council legislation. There is no doubt that wages councils prop up basic levels of pay in areas such as mine. I do not defend every aspect of the wages councils' operations. I believe that some of the youth rates that they set work against the interests of some of my young constituents. Nevertheless, the general principle of the legislation is very much in the interests of my constituents, and its abolition, as threatened by the Government, would have a dramatic effect on already inadequate incomes in the remoter rural areas. The Development Commission could study and analyse matters of that kind and make submissions to the Government in London, who sometimes give the impression that no one actually works for the minimum wages set by wages councils. That is the kind of problem that should be brought to the attention of the House and on which legislation is certainly justified.
There are many other issues. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to population decline in rural areas. I do not wish to be aggressive, but such generalisations about rural areas often turn out not to be true when one analyses the statistics. Some of the fastest rates of population growth in this country are taking place in rural area. The population of Cornwall has increased by 20 per cent. in a decade. I am sure that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) would agree that, although the figure for Devon is a little lower, the increase is of a similar order. Yet there is a general idea that there is a great population drift out of the rural areas. In some areas, of course, that is true, but one of the difficulties of arguing the rural case is that generalisations of that kind are presented as though they were true of all places, when in specific areas that is by no means so.
The population increase in my county has created a massive housing problem. I sometimes hear Members from urban constituencies talking about "hard to let" council houses. When I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) what on earth that meant, he said that it meant houses that nobody would take. He went on to say that there were about 2,000 empty houses in Liverpool. That is certainly not a problem in my part of the world. People are prepared to accept any kind of council property. They would not dare turn down the offer of a house, because if they did they would be put at the bottom of the list and there they would stay for a long

time. I do not wish to underestimate Liverpool's problems, but we have a physical housing shortage. It is different, but that does not mean that the problem is not real and that it is not getting worse.
I hope that the Development Commission will have some sharp things to say about our train service. Many Conservative Members represent the rural and remoter parts of the country. They might be considering a June election. I hope that by that time, for their own sakes, they will have succeeded in getting the Secretary of State for Transport to be a little more forthcoming than hitherto on the Government's view about the Serpell report. If those who represent areas such as mine are mad enough to go to the electorate when there is a serious possiblity of closures such as the railway line terminating at Exeter, they are likely to be in for a rough time. If some railway lines were closed that would create economic disadvantages for some of the remoter areas and it would appear to those who live in the rural areas that the Government had given up any hope of overcoming some of the economic difficulties such as the 21 per cent. male unemployment in my county. How closing railway lines can help tourism, which is one of our useful and vital industries, I do not know. If the Development Commission had been in existence it would already have sent a sharp rejoinder to the Minister about what those who live out in the sticks think of the possiblity of closing railway lines.
There is plenty that the Development Commission could do. It may give advice to the House, but the Government may ignore it, whatever their colour—the Government might be formed of myself and my colleagues. One never knows. If the advice is ignored, I hope that there will be an opportunity for debate and for hon. Members to concentrate their minds on the subject. For example, one would expect the Development Commission to comment on the fact that my county council, which is the second lowest spending county authority in the United Kingdom, is being fined £800,000 this year for overspending. It is an example of how embarrassing facts are hardly ever mentioned in the House. The Cornwall county council is being fined £800,000 for overspending when, according to the Government's own statistics, it is the lowest or second lowest spending authority in the United Kingdom. That is beyond the belief of anyone in my area who has examined the matter and gone through the machinations and the figures that produced such a conclusion. One hopes that the Development Commission will ask the Government why a school should be stolen from Cornwall and why an old folks home should not be built when the county is a low spender.
There is much that the Development Commission could do. The biggest single thing would be to increase the awareness of the House of rural problems. It would bring them to the attention of the House on a regional basis. It would not pretend that Cornwall was the same as Caithness, as is the tendency at the moment. It would bring the problems of particular regions to the attention of the Minister and the House, on which debates could take place.
If the Minister does not come up with superb reasons, and if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central does not withdraw his amendment, I might be tempted to go into the Division Lobby with him in the hope that his amendment will be passed. Better than that would be for


the Minister to say that the amendment is acceptable. I can see no reason why not, especially if the Government have as much interest in rural problems as they claim.

Mr. Don Dixon: I wish to take up one point that was made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) about the wages councils. He said that some people may lose their jobs because of the rates laid down by the wages councils. I hope that, if the Development Commission reports, it will refer to the number of prosecutions against employers who have paid wages below the wages council minimum. Those minimum wages are £52 and £62 a week. Last year I asked a question about the wages council that covers licensed nonresidential establishments. It was discovered that 1,728 establishments were underpaying their employees and that the amounts totalled almost £500,000.
It is wrong to say that a wages council is putting the wage level too high, when one considers people in areas such as the one that the hon. Member for Truro represents. Hotel staff, barmaids and so on are badly paid. Not only are they badly paid, but the minimum wage set by the wages council is very low. Also, many employers are being caught with their fingers in their employees' wage packets. They are not even paying them the minimum wage.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. He is backing what I was saying, which is that, without wages councils, some workers would be paid even less than they are now.

Mr. Dixon: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I was under the impression that he said that the wages councils' minimum wages were deterring some employers from employing youngsters. I disagree. The minimum wages laid down by the wages councils are too low, and also in some cases they are not even being paid.
The Government have already cut the number of wages inspectors by one third, which means that establishments that were being visited once every five years are now being visited once every 10 years. I shall take the argument to a logical conclusion. In 1982, 1,728 establishments were found to be stealing, robbing and getting their fingers caught in their employees' pay packets, with the amounts totalling almost £500,000. They were robbing the people on the lowest wages in the country. One hopes that the Development Commission will say that it wants something stronger from the Government to ensure that anyone who is found to be paying below a wages council's minimum wage will be automatically prosecuted. That is the sort of thing that I would look for from the Development Commission to be set up under clause 1.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Wakeham): This has been a short but useful debate. In his amendment, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) seeks more information. He believes that as a result of more information better decisions will be made and more assistance will come to the rural areas. I am happy enough with that as a general proposition. I have no particularly strong views on whether that assistance comes from the private sector or from public provision. I think

that both sides of the House want to see development in the rural areas as opportunities to do so arise, and to do what we can to promote that development centrally.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the letter that I wrote to him between the Committee stage and today. He kindly said that he thought that the result of the correspondence was a match draw. I was tempted to say that he was right in theory and that I was right in practice, but that might have a political connotation, which perhaps we should not pursue.
However, the hon. Gentleman asked me to say specifically what I told him in my letter. I am happy to do so. We were discussing loans to village shops. I said that it was not possible for the Development Commission to make the loans, and added:
The position is that loans can be made, but that they cannot be made at concessionary rates of interest which are available to small manufacturing and service firms. In practice, I understand that no loan has been made so far, and that policy has been to find commercial sources for financial needs.
The position is broadly the same for the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and the Development Board for Rural Wales. They all have powers to make loans to retailers, but tend not to use them.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are many difficulties in rural areas and that no part of the country can be immune from the problems of the recession. Perhaps rightly, we probably hear more in the House about difficulties in city centres and urban areas than about rural areas. It is right that we should concentrate on rural areas for a while.
The Development Commission is supported by both sides of the House and has been supported by successive Governments. It is not necessary for me to go over the financial support that it has been given, save to say that it has increased. The commission has not found itself short of money. Rather, it has not spent all of the money that the Government have allocated to it recently. As to the future, although no commitment can be made at this stage, if the commission runs into difficulties, the Government have made it clear that they will do what they can to ensure that the commission's work programme does not suffer.
The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to present to Parliament the major piece of advice that he receives from the Development Commission. I can imagine nothing of substance that the commission would not include in its annual reports to the Secretary of State which he must lay before Parliament. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of schedule 1 deal with accounts and information. Paragraph 11 specifically requires the commission to report annually to the Secretary of State about the exercise of its functions during that year. The Secretary of State has no choice but to lay that report before Parliament. Moreover, he cannot tell the commissioners what they should and should not say in their report.
I shall illustrate that by quoting from two reports. The first is that for 1977, which says:
At the time of writing, however, (August 1977) the Commissioners' long-term financial position is far from clear and the Commissioners wish to record their dissatisfaction at the absence of a long-term financial commitment by the Government to support the Commissioners' increased efforts to help the deprived rural areas of England.
Of course, that report was written during the time of the previous Government. In last year's report, referring to the enterprise allowance scheme, the commissioners wrote:
The scheme is similar to one that we have ourselves proposed and we welcome the decision to introduce it. We were,


however, disappointed that the areas selected for the trials were all urban. We have urged the Government to introduce a fourth pilot project in a rural area.
It would be wrong and inaccurate to suggest that the commission's reports express any political bias. It is clear from reading its reports that it does not mind expressing its views and does so strongly. The right way in which to meet the perfectly legitimate point of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central is to encourage the commission to continue to do what it has done in the past through its reports.
The Government believe that it is right that the commission's reports should cover all its functions and that the present pattern of reporting to Parliament gives a rounded and valuable perspective on what is happening in rural areas. The commissioners have never been shy of expressing their views about Government policy and action in rural areas.
Paragraph 11, without specifically mentioning the word "advice", undoubtedly lays a duty on the commission to record its views, especially when such advice has not been accepted or acted upon. We accept that the independence and integrity of the commission should be preserved. The duties in clause 1(3), the powers in clause 1(4) and the reporting requirements of paragraph 11 of schedule 1 achieve that. The additional reporting requirements proposed in the amendment are not needed and could distort the commission's duties and powers and add unnecessarily to the paper that we all have in sufficiency, if not excess.
The best way in which to achieve what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wishes lies in his not pressing his amendment but joining me in telling the commissioners that we welcome their reports, even if they are sometimes not unstinting in their praise of the Government and, indeed, are critical. Their right and duty to continue to report on the rural scene as they see it is the best safeguard to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Cook: I entirely concur with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) rightly and forcefully made. The existence of wages councils poses something of a dilemma to those of us who are anxious about low pay. We recognise that if the wages councils and the legislation that underpins them were removed, people who are employed in the bulk of the industries that are covered by wages councils would find themselves worse off.
Even if people who are employed in the relevant industries succeed in getting the full rate prescribed by the appropriate wages council—my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow pointed out that many do not—no one who studies the rate of pay that is provided by wages council legislation can regard even the full wage as an adequate living wage. There is a dilemma here. It must be admitted in all candour that no previous Government have had an integrated and coherent policy on low pay. The Government have one, but it is designed to make the problem of low pay worse. One way in which to make it worse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, is to reduce the number of inspectors employed by wages councils. They already make far too few inspections of the industries that are covered by the legislation.
The reflections of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow were prompted by what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said about rural poverty. I entirely accept the sense of what he said. It is disturbing that no

less than 18 per cent. of people who claim family income supplement are farm workers. That is an alarming figure, which demonstrates the problem of poverty on the farm.
I was struck by an article in a Sunday newspaper last month which dissected the economies of one farm and discovered that farm labourers who each shifted £180,000 worth of output received £5,000 in wages. There is a disproportion between the output of and the wage received by the worker. As the hon. Member for Truro said, such poverty sets the tone for wages in the rest of the rural community and lies at the bottom of many of the other social and economic problems that he isolated.
I should like to put it to the hon. Member for Truro, in the same spirit as he put to me our difference of view about transport policy, that there is no dispute between us about the decline in population. It may be that some regions with large rural areas have increasing populations but that often masks a substantial population shift in the region and conceals a substantial depopulation in the more remote areas. In the Highland region there has been an increase in population, although not perhaps as marked as that in Devon and Cornwall, which conceals a real depopulation in areas such as Lochaber. The success of the urban nodes in the region is, on the other side of the coin, a problem for the remote rural areas., whose population is attracted to the developing urban nodes. Within those declining areas there is an increasing spiral of deprivation and decline as services chase the population and the population then chases services.
5.30 pm
The Opposition have shown a lively awareness of and anxiety about the problems, and a desire for additional information. I endorse the Minister's statement that both sides of the House support the Development Commission's work. I have not made a similar statement yet today, because I did so on Second Reading and in Committee, but I am happy to repeat it now that the Opposition fully support the commission's excellent work. It would be strange if we did not do so, because in 1975 the Labour Government sponsored a review of the commission's work, which resulted in a substantial expansion of its role in industrial promotion. My research during the passage of the Bill has left me impressed by its work and by the quality of its productions. That has not been the case with every body that has been scrutinized during the Bill's progress. I shall have something to say about the Crown Estate Commissioners when we reach the relevant clause.
I endorse the Minister's statement that in the past the commission has had little hesitation in criticising the Government of the day. As the Minister quoted from the reports, I shall share with the House my favourite statement from the latest report:
The Government's call for further reductions across the board in local government expenditure has therefore hit the rural areas particularly hard.
In an earlier passage the commission states:
We have to recognise that: the statutory authorities who are charged with providing the main services cannot meet all the needs of the community. With increasing pressure on their resources many are cutting back.
I agree with the Minister that there is good evidence that the commission is willing to criticise Governments of the day, including this Government. It is regrettable that the Government are not responding to those criticisms. It would be nice if that advice were taken on board by the Government.
The Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary and undesirable because it would place a procedural straitjacket on the commission, which could in any event include advice in its annual report. I am reluctant to divide the House, which would delay our proceedings by a further 15 minutes, but, as there is no great gulf between us in principle, I put it to the Minister that there may be occasions when the commission tenders advice to the Government in fuller detail than can be summarised in a paragraph of an annual report. Before I withdraw the amendment, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will impress it upon his colleagues at the Department of the Environment that where any such report is provided under the clause the Department will give favourable consideration to publishing it and should, in general, publish any advice received from the Development Commission rather than leave it for internal consumption? If he cannot give that undertaking, I shall be tempted to join the hon. Member for Truro and a few other hon. Members in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Wakeham: The report of the Development Commission is its concern and the Government cannot influence what should be put in or left out. However, in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman raised the question, may I say that it is right that the commission should continue to include in the report any relevant and important information—if it is too long for the report it should find some other way of publishing its views—that is of sufficient substance for public debate. I do not wish any action of the Government to be construed as wishing to hold back the production of valuable information.

Mr. Cook: I am happy that that is now on record. I assume that the implicit undertaking contained in that statement is that the Minister will make his colleagues aware of it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 25, leave out
`with the approval of the Treasury'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 2 line 29, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
No. 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Cook: This group of amendments raises a point that we discussed in Committee, albeit in relation to clause 2 rather than to clause 1. Although it is raised in relation to clause 1, it is effectively the same point and a similar amendment to clause 2 is grouped with it.
Both clauses explicitly require Treasury approval for the payment of grants. As clause 1 is drafted, the Secretary of State for the Environment can give a grant to the Development Commission only with the approval of the Treasury, and the commission in turn can give financial assistance only on arrangements approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment and by the Treasury. Similarly, under clause 2, the Secretary of State for Industry can make a grant to any of the named or unnamed bodies only with the explicit approval of the Treasury, and he needs Treasury approval for any conditions that he may attach to the grant.
The Committee recognised that those elegant phrases in the clause are the result of a drafting convention. Many Committee members were not entirely convinced of the need for the drafting convention.
The Minister and officials of the relevant Department will have approved the grant and any conditions attached to it. The Minister and especially his officials are better briefed to judge the details of the grant, its desirability, and the conditions that are necessary and desirable than is the Treasury. None of those grants is likely to result in runaway public expenditure. They require modest sums of public money. The Secretaries of State for Industry and for the Environment must operate within a budget and are subject to cash limits. If they spend more on grants under these clauses, they will have less to spend for other purposes.
In fairness to the Minister, it must be said that, when we discussed the matter in Committee, he admitted that he was not entirely persuaded of the strict necessity for those references. At one point he rebutted our amendment on the ground that there was no difference of opinion between the Secretary of State for Industry and the Treasury, so I asked, logically and reasonably, "Why have them in the clause?" The Minister replied:
That is by far the most difficult question to answer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 1 March 1983; c. 49.]

Sir Peter Emery: Quite candid.

Mr. Cook: Yes, it was a candid statement.
The Minister, in making that statement, was aware of the difficulty of explaining the need for the drafting convention, which sprinkles references to the Treasury throughout the legislation. He then undertook to reconsider whether the reference to the Treasury in clause 2 was necessary. We have tabled the amendments at this stage because we do not wish the House to be deprived of the fruit of the Minister's consideration. I hope that he will either produce a more compelling reason for the references or accept that the Bill will be that much shorter, but none the worse, for removing them.

Sir Peter Emery: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) for moving the amendment because the third one allows me to raise a point that I raised in Committee and it would be useful if it were raised on the Floor of the House. The amendment is important as it relates to grants that may be made by a Government to areas where development is to be encouraged and is required, as set out in clause 2, but which have received no financial assistance from Government to encourage industry to go into those areas.
It is not surprising that I wish to refer to the east Devon district council and the eastern part of Devon, which are in my constituency, because until now east Devon has received no Government assistance, either as an intermediate area or as an assisted area by which funds could be used to attract industry to the area. East Devon and similar areas in Scotland and the north that are on the fringe of assisted areas find that their levels of unemployment are just as great as those in assisted or intermediate areas.
There has been criticism that Governments have been unwilling to be open-handed in their assistance. I understand the problems that Governments have in this regard. Lines must be drawn somewhere or the entire


country would become an assisted area, with the exception of London and the south-east. I do not wish to embarass the Government, but it is important that the Minister should be able to give the House the assurance that he gave in Committee, that the grants from the Treasury under clause 2 will apply to all the development bodies named in the Bill, or subsequently authorised by the Minister.
Money granted to the Devon and Cornwall development bureau should be used to encourage development in those two counties and not just that area of the county or counties which until now has been designated under assisted area legislation. That means that for the first time Government money would be used in east Devon to attract industry and to develop east Devon, which has not previously received Government assistance. I welcome that. I seek the complete assurance of the Minister that my interpretation of the facts is correct.
There are two further questions that I should like to ask about the grants being given by the Government and the independence or otherwise of the development bodies. I shall use the Devon and Cornwall development bureau, referred to in clause 2, as an illustration. I am certain that most hon. Members in this packed Chamber will know that the officials who run the Devon and Cornwall development bureau are joint directors. They are the chief planning officer for Cornwall and the estates officer for Devon and have joint authority. There are two offices; there is a staff of about 10, which is divided equally between the two counties.
5.45 pm
There is little doubt that the bureau has done a good and sensible job. The expenditure that it was able to use until last year was £120,000. This will be increased, because of an increase in Government grant, by nearly 100 per cent.—by an extra £ 100,000—to £220,000 for the coming year. It is interesting that 50 per cent. of the money comes from Government aid, and the counties of Devon and Cornwall give 25 per cent. each.
With the new money more staff will be needed. As this is a local authority body, the recruitment of staff will naturally have to go through the normal county council staffing committees. Those bodies, in their desire to meet levels of staffing, economies in expenditure and the requirements of the Secretary of State for the Environment, are attempting to cut their staffing numbers. The recruitment of extra staff in this area may be damaged by the overall edict that throughout the country the numbers of local government employees should be reduced. I seek an assurance from the Minister that in this instance, and where increased grants have been given, the Government should not restrict staffing because the bureau is run by the local authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be referring to the Devon and Cornwall development bureau, which is mentioned in clause 2, whereas the House is dealing with clause 1.

Sir Peter Emery: I have in front of me a paper stating that amendment No. 5 is being discussed with amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and amendment No. 5 relates to clause 2. I had hoped, rather than repeating my speech, that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might deem that I was in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but perhaps he is going a little wide of this amendment.

Sir Peter Emery: I have no desire to widen the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may refer to the Treasury grant, which may be raised in a debate on amendment No. 3. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment the problem of the staffing factor under the grant.
Should the bodies referred to in clause 2 be entirely dominated by local authorities or should they be entirely independent? A former Socialist Minister, Mr. George Chetwynd, headed the development corporation in the north-east and made it independent of full-time local authority officers, whereas the two local authority officers in Devon and Cornwall are giving part of their time to the development bureau.
Do the Government have any views in forming and pressing forward with the work of these development bodies—be they bureaux or corporations—as to whether there is advantage in the head of each body being an independent person of some standing who can devote himself fully to its work? That may not be possible with a local authority officer who has other responsibilities apart from those imposed by the development corporation.
I am not criticising the two local authority officers in Devon and Cornwall, because I believe that they have done a good job. However, I ask the Government to ensure that, when development bodies go overseas to attract industry into their respective localities they are in some way co-ordinated.
I shall use the same illustration again and again. As a member of the Industry and Trade Committee I went to Japan 18 months ago. The Committee was considering imports and exports in relation to Japan. We went round the Nissan motor car factory. At that time Nissan's project in Britain was in the forefront of all our minds. We were informed that 47 British development bodies of one sort or another had been to Japan to attract the Japanese investment into their respective localities. The Japanese told us that we must be mad. Obviously, when there is Treasury grant—as outlined in amendment No. 3—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very wide of the amendments under discussion.

Sir Peter Emery: The grant comes under amendment No. 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Japan are rather wide.

Sir Peter Emery: The way that the grant is used must come under the control of the Treasury. I am arguing that, if bodies will not listen to the Government's advice about going overseas to Japan or anywhere else, the Government should think twice about the way in which the grant is given. The present situation does no service to this country and makes us a laughing stock among those who might otherwise invest in this country.
One of the most interesting factors is that, although Plymouth and other local authorities have their own development organisations, any move to attract overseas investment has been made by the Devon and Cornwall development bureau, and the local authorities have agreed. Will the Minister make it clear to those bodies—as


I know that the Government would like to do—that there should be co-ordination between them when they go overseas to attract foreign investment to ensure that many of them are not doing exactly the same thing?

Mr. Wakeham: My notes are headed "the importance of Treasury consent", and I suppose that that is inevitable. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will agree that the amendments are not fundamental to the Bill, but they are nevertheless important. In Committee, I said that it was difficult to justify when Treasury consent was used and when it was not used. However, I shall try to give the best explanation that I can.
Although I do not have the great experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I shall try to deal with the Treasury matters that he raised so ably a moment ago. In the Treasury's view and that of the Government, a body such as the Devon and Cornwall development bureau is expected to promote the activities of the area covered by all the constituent local authorities. There can be no question of any doubt as to whether that promotion should be restricted to only part of the area which has development status. I noted my hon. Friend's point about the possible difficulties in obtaining the right level of staff within those bodies because of their close association with local authorities, which might make it difficult for them to attract staff with the right professional expertise and experience. In addition, my hon. Friend feared that they might be too closely associated with particular programmes that were being run down as a result of tighter financial control. I shall draw those points to the attention of my colleagues, because we want properly qualified staff, who are adequately paid, to do this important job.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has personal experience of this issue. He mentioned George Chetwynd who was the director of the North-East development council some years ago. The Government want the best qualified person to be in charge of such bodies. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry would be likely to discuss that sort of issue with the bodies when the annual discussion takes place on the levels of Government support. However, I do not wish to criticise any of the existing chief executives, or the way in which any of the bodies conduct their affairs. Nevertheless, I am prepared to agree with my hon. Friend that there may be occasions when an independent chief executive would make the body most effective. The Government would certainly want that wherever possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton mentioned the proliferation of bodies going overseas to promote inward investment. That is of concern to the Government and we have pointed out to such bodies that it is not only a waste of resources, but counter-productive, for many competing bodies to go, for example, to Japan. The overseas firm may well consider that, with competition from so many areas, they can seek a level of Government assistance way above that which the Government are prepared to give. As a result of over-zealous enthusiasm on the part of competing bodies, the project may fall by the wayside. There is a danger of that happening, and my colleague in the Department of Industry is anxious to avoid that. He has

pointed out to several bodies the dangers of too many competing organisations going to such places as Japan and the United States of America.
Following our discussions about the use of the words "Treasury consent", I considered the matter in some detail, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will be pleased to know. In considering it in detail and taking some time over it, I have probably failed to do things that he might have considered more damaging. However, I shall begin by giving some background. The importance of a requirement of Treasury consent under certain circumstances has consistently been recognised by both Labour and Conservative Administrations. Examples under a Labour Government include the Scottish Development Agency and Welsh Development Agency Acts 1975, the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 and the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978. Examples under this Administration include the Housing Act, and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
We are talking about the difference between two kinds of Treasury control: that which is secured by the statutory requirement of Treasury consent to the decision of a Department; and that which is secured by the merely implicit requirement of Treasury consent under the sanction only of the authority which the Treasury is acknowledged to have in matters of finance and establishment. There is no detailed black and white statement of doctrine on when the statutory requirement of Treasury consent should apply, and I could not say that the position was absolutely consistent in every case. However, it is clear from my researches that the need for the express requirement of Treasury consent arises whenever Parliament, by placing a responsibility on a departmental Minister, appears to reduce the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in some matter of finance or establishment. To attempt to establish beyond that a set of principles by discovering and investigating the reasons for every example of this statutory requirement, and the reasons for omitting it where such provision might have been made, would be a monumental task.
6 pm
In theory, one might argue that the Chancellor's authority is protected by the collective responsibility of Ministers, and, in the case of Government Departments, by the granting of supply according to Estimates presented by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. However, in practice, mistakes and misunderstandings between Departments can occur, with the result that the Chancellor may be inevitably committed to honour a proposal that he would not have authorised. The requirement of consent completely protects his authority. This is necessary because, with the best will in the world, there could be cases in which the use of powers given to a departmental Minister to execute his departmental policies might be inconsistent with Treasury policy. The examples that I have quoted show that Governments of both parties have been aware of this.
The Treasury therefore sees considerable advantage to the smooth conduct of business in being able to rely on specific statutory provision instead of on a general doctrine about interdepartmental consultation. Any erosion of the classes of case for which in future the requirement of consent should be included would not, in our view, improve relationships with Departments, and because of


the difficulty of definition could increase departmental doubts about the need for Treasury approval. Indeed, to accept these amendments—to change doctrine now—would be to give a misleading signal. Departments might construe what looked like a declared change of practice as a waiver of the need to consult the Treasury at all. It is a presupposition in cases such as this that the Treasury should be consulted. The question at issue is simply whether the need for consultation should be given specific statutory expression, and, for the reasons that I have outlined, I firmly believe that it should be given in this case.

Mr. Cook: We have moved a little since Committee when the Minister relied on tradition as the basis for the existence in the clauses of the phrases that the amendments seek to strike out. The Minister does not now rely on tradition, which he did not seek to defend in any strong or vigorous terms today. Now he relies on the fact that changing tradition could be dangerous and convey—if I have the words right—the wrong signal to the appropriate Department. I am encouraged to discover that in the Departments of Industry and of the Environment large numbers of senior civil servants are straining outside the windows in search of the appropriate signal from the Treasury that they are free from Treasury control. Frankly, I doubt whether many civil servants in either of those great Departments would be encouraged recklessly to throw abandon to the wind as they disbursed grants because the Minister had accepted my modest amendment.
I appreciate that the Minister has carried out some research into the matter, but, as he candidly said, it requires further research. Perhaps in one of our great universities, which has not been entirely truncated by expenditure cuts, an aspiring PhD student could consider the matter. I put forward the possibly unworthy thought that the Bill may be peppered with these phrases in a way that other Bills with similar provisions are not because this measure is promoted by the Treasury. Doubtless that is an unworthy consideration that does not adequately explain the high issues of policy that caused the phrases to be put into the Bill.
The Minister stated at the outset that my amendments were not absolutely fundamental to the purposes of the Bill. It would be an onerous requirement on any Opposition to table amendments that were not only in order but absolutely fundamental to the purposes of the Bill. I am content that my amendments were not defective, without seeking also to make them absolutely fundamental. I admit that in a way their purpose was to tease the Minister, and I have had some satisfaction in that respect. Therefore, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and to content myself with the knowledge that I have diverted the Minister from more damaging activities into the harmless contemplation of this issue.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

GRANTS TO REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 3, at end insert—
`(dd) the West Midlands enterprise board'.
We move from amendments that I was confident were not defective to an amendment that I frankly admit is

gloriously—indeed, heroically—defective. It would include among the named development bodies the West Midlands enterprise board.
I concede at the outset that, despite the excellent work carried out by the West Midlands enterprise board, it is not an appropriate vehicle as a development organisation to receive grants on a par with the other four organisations that are named in the clause. The other four bodies are concerned primarily with promoting inward investment into their areas, whereas the West Midlands enterprise board is concerned primarily with rescuing existing indusries, of which too many are in difficulties in the west midlands, and matching their capital requirements with the capital that the West Midlands county council can raise either from its own internal resources or from financial institutions in the area. I hesitate to say which is the more important task. The West Midlands enterprise board may be doing a more essential and rewarding task in considering what can be done in its own area by using the resources of its own area than other development organisations which have concentrated on seeking external resources to come into their areas.
There is a tale, at once comic and sad, that reinforces what the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said about the complexity and unnecessary repetition of the attempts made to attract external foreign investment. A local authority in Sheffield sent a delegation to Japan seeking inward investment for Sheffield. While it was in Tokyo, it met another delegation of south Yorkshire councillors and officials who turned out to be there on behalf of another south Yorkshire local authority pension fund seeking opportunities for outward investment in Japan by that pension fund. The unfortunate coincidence by which they both found themselves in Japan, one looking for investment from and the other looking for investment in that country, shows the enormous capacity that exists within local authorities and local communities to use the capital resources that are available to meet the problems of those areas.
I congratulate the West Midlands enterprise board on the sterling work that it has done in the past three or four years in trying to provide a sound base for local indigenous industries. We do not wish to impose a radical change on that board against its wish—and certainly we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote—but the purpose of the amendment is to enable the House to explore a strange aspect of the Bill that has surfaced on a number of occasions both on Second Reading and in Committee. One of the anomalies of the clause is that it names four specific development organisations which are now to be entitled to receive grant from the Department of Industry, with the gracious permission of the Treasury, and those four organisations rightly represent four regions with serious problems of economic development. However, none of those four organisations represents any part of the region that has been hit most spectacularly by the Government's policies of the past four years—the west midlands.
What has happened in the west midlands since 1979 has been truly dramatic. It is a traditionally prosperous region. At one time, it was one of two regions that were held up to the other regions of Britain as examples of prosperity and the acme of success. It has now been translated into a depressed region where unemployment is exceeded by only one other region in mainland Britain—the northern region.
It is within my recollection in my time in public life that Scotland used to regard the west midlands as the region to be emulated. In speeches and in questions asked at public meetings, it was held up as an example of the level of prosperity, wages and employment which we ought to be seeking to attain in Scotland. It is a remarkable change in the fortunes of that region that it now has a level of unemployment which is higher—albeit only marginally, but nevertheless higher—than that in Scotland, which continues to be a disgrace and a scandal.
The forum of county councils within the west midlands has carried out a study of what has happened there in the last three years. Its conclusion is that in those three years the west midlands has suffered the greatest increase in unemployment and the greatest drop in jobs of any region in mainland Britain. It has lost more than 1,000 jobs for every week the Government have been in office. The increase in the long-term unemployed has been particularly dramatic. In April 1979 only 35,000 men and women in the west midlands had been unemployed for more than one year; in October 1982 there were 156,000—an almost fivefold increase in the long-term unemployed.
The reason why the west midlands in particular has suffered from the monetarist shock is easy to discover. The prosperity of the region was based mainly on engineering and metal industries. Those industries have suffered most grievously under the monetarist policies of the past three or four years and were hit most severely by the penetration of our market by foreign products.
I reflect on the intense and exciting debates we had in the House in the mid-1970s when the then Labour Government were rescuing British Leyland. The Conservative Opposition opposed our rescue package. I recall a member of that Conservative Opposition, who is now Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, leading a Back-Bench revolt, because his Front Bench hesitated to go quite that far with the degree of irresponsibility, against the money resolution.
In the course of his speech in the debate on the money resolution he said that, hon. Members had been told that if British Leyland went, the car industry went, and then the west midlands industries would collapse. He posed the rhetorical question whether the House really believed that the entrepreneurs of the west midlands and the black country would be so lacking in imagination and drive that they would be unable to find other outlets for their products and other ways of employing their staff if the motor car industry were to go to the wall. Today, the Government have come close to testing the irresponsible question asked by the right hon. Member who now plays a distinguished part within the Government. What we have discovered as a result of the experiment is that it is impossible for entrepreneurs, be they large or small, to cope with a major collapse in their own domestic market.
The Financial Times carried out a survey in the west midlands last autumn. Its report included a quotation by an executive of one company whose work force has been halved in the past three years. That executive—and I have no reason to believe that he is a card-carrying member of the Labour party—said:
The Government have done a great job, not only in cutting out the fat, but in killing local industry.
I cannot see any prospect of revival.
We meet in the week in which we have seen accounts of the debate within the National Economic Development Council on its report on future employment prospects within industry. As we know from the press, the NEDC has discovered in its survey of 40 sectors of British industry that there will be no increase in employment in the foreseeable future. We were not privileged to be present, but we understand from the press that the report is controversial within the Government and that Government representatives at the meeting exuded greater optimism than the director of the NEDC or the business or trade union representatives on the NEDC. Obviously, Mary Poppins still reigns at the Treasury.
I was intrigued to note that the Chancellor gave as one of the reasons for optimism the fact that the pound had declined in recent months. That I find a particularly interesting statement when I recall that throughout the past three years the Chancellor has claimed that one of the major reasons for the success of this policy was the rise in the value of the pound and how, when the pound started to go down in January, oddly enough it was said that the responsibility was not that of the Chancellor, but of the Labour Opposition.
6.15 pm
The Chancellor is bullish. The Minister of State, who has demonstrated frankness and integrity throughout our proceedings, would be the first to agree that, however bullish the Chancellor may be about future prospects for the economy, regions such as the west midlands, which are dependent primarily on industrial manufacturing, have on present policies no prospect of an increase in employment which would return them to anything like their position in April 1979.
Given the recent devastating past and the bleak future that exists for the west midlands, the House is entitled to look to the Government for a response. We had a response of a kind at the weekend, but it did not even rise to the level of a comic gesture. The Government have designated their most recent and most junior Minister at the Department of Industry as the Minister with special responsibility for west midlands industry. On Second Reading I reminded the House that we met in the week that marked the 20th anniversary of the visit by Lord Hailsham to the north-east of England after he had been appointed as Minister with special responsibility for solving the unemployment problems of the north-east. I drew a contrast between the commitment of the former Conservative Government in responding to the level of unemployment in the north-east, which was only 5 per cent. but which they admitted was unacceptable, and the failure of this Government to respond to levels of unemployment three and four times as high as the level that motivated that Conservative Government to appoint Lord Hailsham as Minister with special responsibility for the north-east.
In a way, I am happy about the development at the weekend, because it enables me to balance that contrast on Second Reading with a further contrast on Report. The more pertinent contrast is that that Government at least appointed a senior Minister, a head of Department, a member of the Cabinet and someone with high standing in the Conservative party as the Minister with responsibility for the north-east. This Government have eloquently displayed their lesser commitment to resolving the problems of industrial regeneration and unemployment


by appointing the most junior and most inexperienced Minister whom they could find. I could not hope for a clearer contrast between the different types of Conservative Government which we face which spring from a different type of Conservative party.
At the end of the article in The Sunday Times, which reported the appointment, there was a statement that the Government were not unhappy at having taken this initiative in respect of the west midlands and were prepared to resist any similar approaches from other regions and that
ministers are confident that they will be able to resist charges of discrimination.
I am happy to assure the Minister that no member of the Labour Opposition will accuse the Government of discrimination in favour of the west midlands. It would be a task well beyond our skills of rhetoric, great though they may be. Plainly, the Government, if accused of discrimination in relation to the west midlands, have discriminated heavily against what was formerly the industrial heartland of the nation.
If the Government are serious about tackling the problems that they have created for the west midlands, they will require a body in the west midlands which can act as the local leg of the regeneration process. I am diffident about criticising the regional development bodies already in place in the west midlands, and I have already pointed to the enterprising and frontier pioneering work being carried out by the West Midlands enterprise board.
In that same Financial Times survey, the newspaper noted that the west midlands has probably one of the most ineffectual regional lobbies in the United Kingdom. I understand that there is now a move afoot among local authorities to try to weld together a development organisation, broadly comparable with those in the northwest and the north-east, which could seek to promote inland investment and take a broader view of the development opportunities in the west midlands than the enterprise board necessarily can.
The Department of Industry is not prohibited by the clause from making grants to any such body. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may make grants to any other bodies that he thinks fit. That enables the Department to make a grant to whatever body may emerge in the west midlands.
Before we pass from the clause, and as the west midlands is not specifically mentioned although four other regions are, we are entitled to ask the Government what response any such body in the west midlands is likely to receive when it seeks from the Department of Industry parity of treatment either with the North of England development council or the other development organisations that are mentioned. I hope that the Minister can tell us that, if such an approach is received from the west midlands in the near future, it will receive a sympathetic response and that, therefore, my amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will confirm that such a body will receive favourable, positive treatment under paragraph (e) and that the Department will be only too happy to make available as much grant as such a body can absorb, so that the Government may undo some small part of the immense damage that has been done to the west midlands during the past four years.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I apologise to the House for the fact that, because of a constituency

engagement I shall not be able to remain to savour and enjoy the erudite and illuminating contributions to the debate on the Bill.
I was especially anxious to intervene on this issue and on these proposals. I welcome the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) not only because it proposes to include the West Midlands enterprise board, but because it provides the opportunity to recommend the Minister—I trust that he can reply to this—the inclusion of the Greater London enterprise board. The clause refers to bodies that stem from the conventional wisdom of the orthodox approach to regional development agencies over the main part of the post-war period, rather than to the newer, more dynamic, and, indeed, more interventionist approach of the enterprise board concept.
The difference is essentially that agencies such as the North of England development council, the North West industrial development association and others aim to attract and pull into an area that which is not already there, whereas the enterprise board approach is far more to reinforce and promote success among what is already there and, where possible, to stem and offset the decline among small and medium-size firms that have been especially critically hit by the current economic crisis.
In that respect, I should be glad if the Minister could give an assurance to the House that the grants to which reference is made will not prejudice any shareholdings that enterprise boards or agencies may wish to take in local firms. I stress that point, because one of the critical problems of the small and medium-size firms in a recession is that even if it has the technology to enable it to undertake a rationalisation of its production it may well not be able, from current cash flow, to mobilise that degree of self-financing that permits it to embody the new technology in innovative investment. Enterprises in areas, for example, covered by the Greater London enterprise board and, I suspect, the West Midlands enterprise board have approached the boards with the request that there be some means of getting a capital injection to enable them to survive the recession and to come abreast of new technology, for example, by the enterprise board purchasing the property or the premises of the enterprise itself.
Under normal circumstances that might well be quite useful. It could clearly amount to an injection of capital of £500,000 to £2·5 million or more in the enterprise itself. It is a recycling of funds which, if it is to go into productive investment, could be very valuable. I trust that the Minister is not excluding any means by which we can ensure that savings and finance are translated into enterprising investment in the companies that are faced with such difficulties.
I hope that the Minister can give the House an assurance that grant will, under no circumstances, be withheld—indeed, if he is feeling especially adventurous, perhaps he will assure us that they will be encouraged—from firms unable to go abroad to seek investment, of which several criticisms have already been made by more than one hon. Member. We should enable the enterprise boards or development agencies themselves to set up export representation facilities in foreign markets. I stress that point.
When a firm employs 16, or even 60, individuals, it is rarely in a position to develop markets abroad. Even al the level of 60 employees it is only beginning to border on the


kind of entrepreneurial structure—the multi-divisional management structure is not yet within its reach—through which it could have permanent export representation in foreign markets. In other words, whether the enterprise is Wandsworth Widgets or West Midlands Carburettors, Components, Input Pins Ltd., the fact is that it needs the joint muscle of export representation in foreign markets of a kind that at present is difficult to find or escapes it.
I wish to give an illustration that could be relevant to the West Midlands enterprise board. It is certainly relevant to the Greater London enterprise board. The provision of even a quite modest export sales staff, perhaps starting with half a dozen permanent export representatives, could mean that there is at least one export representative whose specialist responsibility is Scandinavia and northern Europe and who will represent a range of firms in the west midlands or the Greater London area. One representative's specialisation may be eastern and southern Europe, with another in western Europe and another in the United States—wherever the key markets are.
It is only by that principle of the division of labour—something of which the Government are a great advocate, as they support Adam Smith, who told us that the way to make pins is not simply to stick all the heads on oneself—that small and medium firms will be able to achieve the export muscle to reverse the syndrome that we have heard criticised by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), whereby one had to take a begging bowl to Japan to get inward investment into regions where we have the skills, the enterprise and the entrepreneurship, but what we do not have is, in many cases, the critical minimum of finance and the guarantee of markets to survive.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reply on the matter of public purchasing. If individual small and medium firms are to be assisted, if there is to be a link between the supply and demand side of the economy at the regional level where it can be significant—whereas at the local level it may not be—it should be possible for firms in the enterprise board framework to meet public purchasing contracts pursued by the enterprise agencies themselves.
In this respect I hope—especially as the Labour party, in its wisdom, has now retitled the concept of a planning agreement an agreed development plan—that the planning agreement approach pursued by the West Midlands enterprise board will be welcomed by the Minister—as indeed it is welcomed by many small firms—as a positive means of ensuring that the enterprise boards fulfil their responsibilities in relation to a degree of security of market for the firms concerned.
In general, I welcome the clause, and I noted that the Minister, in replying to the debate on the previous clause, drew attention to the fact that, as I stressed at the beginning, this provision is very much in line with the conventional wisdom and the orthodox thinking—although those were not his words—of industrial development policy over a considerable period of time. Indeed, he referred to the fact that other Governments had done this kind of thing, as is seen from the Scottish Development Agency Act and the Welsh Development Agency Act in 1975, the Development of Rural Wales Act in 1976, the Housing Act and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act in 1980.
I am struck—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central has been—by the parallel with debates on industrial intervention that have taken place in the House before—modest though it is; indeed, slipping in like a mouse in these financial provisions—and the broad range of powers that will be given, with, of course, Treasury consultation and supervision, to the Secretary of State to make a grant to any agency at any time to provide for any function whatsoever. I wholeheartedly welcome this. It strongly echoes, and is reminiscent of, a certain Industry Act in 1972, which represented a retreat from Selsdon man and the notorious so-called U-turn in Government policy.
I cannot say how deeply we are into the U-turn of Government policy here. I think that it is questionable whether the Government have yet made a U-turn. Some people might say that they are into an S-bend. Others might say that they hope that they will disappear from such a bend in the very near future since probably the best that could be done for the less developed regions of the United Kingdom would be a change of Government to one who actually believed in this kind of intervention instead of the rather cosmetic devices that are being employed at the moment.
The other question to the Minister, to which I am sure he will reply, is whether—unlike the citizens advice bureau issue which was debated earlier and in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, the sticky fingers of the Prime Minister are evident all over the measure—in this case the Prime Minister approves of this provision in the Bill. I might even ask whether, in this case, with such an interventionist measure, the right hand of the Government knows what the left hand is doing—or do we have a Government with two right hands? Is this a serious provision or not?
I am sure that the Minister, who has already been congratulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central on his integrity, will be able to assure the House—I am quite serious about this—that this measure is not only within the miscellaneous financial provisions but will actually be used and that some weight will be given to it. If that is to be the case, we need to take account of the degree to which the measure contradicts the main thrust of the Budget and contradicts the collapse in demand in the economy as a whole, which, rather than enabling the Government to get into a U-turn, means that the small and medium sector is in a free-fall situation. Certainly if the Government follow through the significance and meaning of this provision they will be beginning seriously to change their policy and to undertake the kind of recovery of public expenditure without which the future of small and medium firms within the economy is hardly secure.

Mr. Dixon: I, too, welcome the addition to clause 2, which includes the West Midlands enterprise board. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said about the least that could be aimed at by the west midlands being what was in this Bill, referring to Devon and Cornwall, the North of England development council, the North-West industrial development association and the Yorkshire and Humberside development association. I thought that he set his sights a bit low and that he would suggest that they should be brought up to what is enjoyed by the Scottish


Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency. It is powers of that sort that we in the regions require.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that many people were going abroad to try to attract industry to this country, and he mentioned Nissan. It is ironic that the first delegation that went from this country to Japan at the time when Nissan was allegedly going to make its decision was led by the Secretary of State for Wales. There was a good deal of criticism from the Opposition. We said that if Wales was to be one of the areas suggested, it would have an unfair advantage and we suggested that someone from the Department of Industry should have led the delegation, rather than the Secretary of State for Wales. We have considered for a long time that we are the poor relations of Wales and Scotland when it comes to development agencies and certainly when it comes to Ministers and voices within the Cabinet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to Lord Hailsham, as he now is, being made Minister for the north. He came up to north-east at the time when unemployment was 5 per cent., donned a cloth cap and said that he was going to solve all our problems. I must admit, in all fairness, that he did a fair amount for the north of England at that time. We have since then had a Minister for the northern region—my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin). That is the sort of thing that we should be aiming for.
If we set our sights in clause 2 on a West Midlands enterprise board we would be suggesting that there should be development agencies of some sort, with top say within the Cabinet, for all regions—some sort of umbrella arrangement for deciding the priorities, instead of one region vying with another. At the moment, we have not got that, although there are two regions of the country which, although I am not suggesting that they have an unfair advantage, are certainly in a more advantageous position than we are in the northern region.
I fully endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central about the number of unemployed in recent months in the west midlands, but we in the northern region have been suffering this for many years. We are at the top of the unemployment league in this country and have been for many years. With the exception of Northern Ireland, the northern region has the highest unemployment percentage in the country. That cannot be tolerated any longer by our area.
We also have the disadvantage of relying on basic industries, such as mining, shipbuilding and engineering. At the moment, in the Tyne and Wear area, 20,000 men rely on shipbuilding and ship repairing and, bearing in mind the state of the shipbuilding industry world wide, their jobs are in jeopardy. That is the situation in the northern region and I take this opportunity, while supporting the amendment, to highlight it. I fully appreciate that the gesture that the Government have made by putting a junior Minister in charge of the west midlands is just a cosmetic matter before a possible June general election to see whether the Prime Minister can retain some of the marginal seats in the west midlands.
I hope that the next Labour Government will establish development agencies with the object of achieving a coordinated promotional approach, especially in areas of high unemployment.
Clause 2(2)(e) states:

any other body, whether corporate or unincorporate, whose principal object appears to the Secretary of State to be the promotion of industrial or commercial development in an area in England.
Will that "body" be funded in addition to the grant that is being paid to the various development agencies? Over a number of years south Tyneside has had an industrial fair, which has been financed by the local authority. The fair has been a success. Some firms have started as a result, and many firms have received orders. Unfortunately, the local authority cannot finance the fair this year because of Government cuts. Would south Tyneside be successful if it made an application under subsection (1)(e) for an industrial fair this year as in previous years?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) clearly recognised that the promotion of industrial activity in a particular area and the seeking of inward investment into that area are two entirely different matters. I am not sure whether everyone has accepted that they are different. Some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland)—the hon. Gentleman said that he had to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate—suggested that he had not recognised the same clear distinction.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central recognised that, as a consequence of the distinction, the amendment was defective. The purpose of clause 2(2) is to provide a specific statutory authority for the grant paid to the four existing regional development organisations. In some instances the Department of Industry has been paying the grant for many years. The primary aim of the clause is to regularise the payment of the grant.
The West Midlands enterprise board is not in the same category as the other four bodies that are named. It supports individual enterprises that contribute to the west midlands economy but it does not at present aim to promote the region overseas as a location for investment.
That is the answer, too, to the contribution of the hon. Member for Vauxhall who is no longer in his place. He made a better speech today than when I first heard him speak in the Chamber when he was a new Member. On that occasion he spoke for a considerable time and. I think, quoted several chapters of his book. He was somewhat under pressure because the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), whom we miss in this debate, referred to him on that occasion as the finest economist in the western world. That was a burden that the hon. Member for Vauxhall did not have to bear today. I thought that he made his points well.
There is no doubt that the same principle would apply to London as to other regions. The grants are paid for inward investment promotion. That is what clause 2 is all about. The Government support export promotion in other spheres of their activities and these are matters for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. John Horam: I appreciate the distinction which apparently the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) recognised—I am sorry that I was not able to hear his speech—and to which the Minister is now addressing himself. It is the function of the four associations to tackle the problem of inward investment. That has traditionally been their function. However, clause 2(2)(e) is rather ambiguous. It refers to the
promotion of industrial or commercial development in an area in England.


That could mean either of the two approaches that have been recognised as clearly distinctive. I am still not clear whether the Government are entirely satisfied with paragraph (e) in the light of the Minister's objectives.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the Government are satisfied with the wording of the paragraph. It will be used for any other body that comes within the main objectives of clause 2, which are grants to regional development organisations. The Government have no intention of agreeing to any additional bodies except those that are in the business of promoting inward investment.
There is no statutory reason why a body such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) should not receive Government assistance. However, I am bound to tell him that it is unlikely that it would receive such assistance and, secondly, that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. It is unlikely that such a body would receive Government assistance because the Government's view is that we shall best promote industrial development regionally. We do not believe that competing bodies for Government funds in one particular region will produce the most effective use of the funds. If my right hon. Friend accepts that special factors have arisen, the Bill when enacted will not prevent Government assistance. However, that is not the way in which we see the development of these measures.
If the West Midlands enterprise board were to change its activities so that it became eligible, paragraph (e) already gives the Secretary of State the power to provide grants to other bodies for the promotion, especially overseas, of other regions, and that could include the west midlands. I know that local authorities and other organisations in the west midlands are looking towards a regional body of that sort. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry met representatives of the West Midlands county council this afternoon and I am sure that that is one of the matters that they will have discussed. Obviously I do not know the outcome of the discussions.
I believe that there has been some misunderstanding of the announcement about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. He has not been appointed a Minister for the west midlands. His job is to oversee certain industrial initiatives which are the responsibility of his Department. My hon. Friend is a Member for a west midlands constituency and an experienced business man. I am sure that he will do a first-class job in encouraging a better understanding in the west midlands of a great many of the Government's initiatives which we believe are not being used fully—for example, the £100 million small engineering firms investment scheme and many other schemes which are being discussed with the chambers of commerce and local authorities which will come together in partnership to achieve a better use of the available facilities.
I do not doubt for a minute that the hon. Member for Jarrow is right when he says that the west midlands has suffered badly during the recession. The problems of the west midlands, as of the rest of Great Britain, are caused not by Government policies, but by years of falling competitiveness and high wage demands. Our policies are designed to reverse this downward trend and considerable progress has been made. There has been a substantial fall

in the inflation rate; interest rates are down; wage demands are moderating and there is a marked potential for increased productivity.
The Government are giving considerable assistance to the west midlands under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, the microprocessor application project and the support for innovation programme. Areas of the west midlands suffering from dereliction which hinders industrial development are designated as derelict land clearance areas, which means 100 per cent. grants for approved clearance schemes. Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Sandwell, Knowsley and Coventry benefit under inner city policy. Dudley and Telford have enterprise zones. The best prospect for creating real long-term employment in the west midlands, as elsewhere, lies in the Government's policies designed to reduce inflation and to create the right environment for industry to regain its competitive position in world markets.

Mr. Cook: We have had an interesting debate on the amendment, albeit not a debate that touched much upon the west midlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) represents an area whose state is every bit as grave, stressed, strained and suffering from industrial dereliction as any of the regions that we have hitherto debated during the proceedings on the Bill. It was right that he should remind us of that point. I hope that the time will come when there will be a regional development organisation for inner London at least on a comparable footing with some of the development organisations that are specifically named in the clause.
I am not sure that the Minister was entirely fair to my hon. Friend when paraphrasing what he said on this occasion. If the Minister was referring to the speech that I believe he was, it is fair to say that my hon. Friend was under some pressure from the usual channels to make the best use of his time at the most leisurely pace possible for reasons familiar to hon. Members. It may not be entirely fair to criticise my hon. Friend for the time that he took to make some excellent points. On this occasion I believe that my hon. Friend distinguished clearly between the different roles of promoting inward investment and rescuing and stimulating indigenous industrial development.
My hon. Friend made a relevant point that we had not previously considered—that much of the effort being poured into seeking inward investment, some of which is clearly and frankly competitive, could be better put into seeking outlets for the products of the industries that exist within the regions. My hon. Friend was right to make the point that the handling of the export drive of small and even medium-sized firms might best be done through some co-operative effort with some public agency assisting as midwife.
My hon. Friend put the point vigorously to the Minister that the provision in this clause is explicitly interventionist. The Minister will recollect that we teased him into making a lucid and vigorous statement on the interventionist creed. We have it on record. I am treasuring my copy of the report of that sitting of the Committee. On that occasion, the Minister made a clear and cogent statement of the case for intervening in market forces, and the appropriateness of the Government taking such action when market forces failed. On that occasion we were debating the rural areas. One of the regrets of


those of us who represent urban areas is that the Government are more ready to intervene in market forces in agriculture than in manufacturing. Nevertheless, the principle of intervention was clearly conceded by the Minister, and we are treasuring that against a future occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said that we should be seeking comparability for the west midlands not only with the four other regions named in the clause, but between the five of them and Scotland. As my hon. Friend knows, I must tread on eggs here because I am a Scottish Member. I put to my hon. Friend the point that we have discussed on the amendment about the distinction between the two types of industrial development—the promotion of inward investment and the stimulus of local, indigenous industrial development. Our great strength lies in the fact that the Scottish Development Agency now has wider powers and greater resources and experience to carry out what I regard as the important function of stimulating local, indigenous industrial development and has done so with great success. There have been mistakes and failures. We must recognise that, if we are to have a state agency assisting in industrial regeneration and development, inevitably the odd risk that is taken will not pay off.

Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend accept that Scotland also has a Secretary of State who is prepared to resign if Ravenscraig closes? We have no such person if Redcar closes.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct in his statement of the position. Some of us await with interest to see what will happen if that statement is ever put to the test. We are not necessarily persuaded that that alone will be sufficient to safeguard Ravenscraig, which, I assure my hon. Friend, remains under serious threat.
My hon. Friend and I labour under the same disadvantage. We represent two regions of these two great kingdoms which have the good sense to return a healthy Labour majority. If we could obtain similar Labour representation in other regions of Great Britain, our problems would be greatly minimised.
The Minister said yet again that the problems of the west midlands were the result of imprudent economic management over preceding decades. I notice that he left that subject to the end of his speech and skated over it swiftly. I believe, on the whole, that he was wise to do so. I find it profoundly unconvincing that we should be asked to accept that the 17 per cent. unemployment in the west midlands is the product of previous Administrations, be they Labour or Conservative, who managed to keep the level of unemployment in the west midlands to less than one third of that figure. Of course, other factors have contributed to the increase in unemployment. Of course, what has happened in the rest of the world is relevant. Of course, there may have been a failure to invest over the past decades. However, it would assist the nation to accept those alibis if the Government also admitted that a large part of that increase was the result of economic policies that they imposed on the region and that have hitherto failed to change, and show no sign of changing, by the appointment of a junior Minister with responsibility for the west midlands. The appointment, as I understand from the Minister's reply, is even more limited than we had understood at the weekend.
I regret that my amendment is so defective—it refers to a development body that is not four square with the others—that I cannot put it to a Division. The Minister's response on the nature of the problems in the west midlands and the lack of positive response in the Government's reaction to those problems richly deserve the opinion of the House to be expressed in the Division Lobbies. However, I recognise that the West Midlands enterprise board is not necessarily on the same footing as the others and may not be appropriate for insertion in the clause. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7 pm

Mr. Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 23, at end insert—
'(d) a condition requiring the recipient to obtain specified grants from the relevant local authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
'(6) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement concerning any condition imposed by him under subsection (4)(d) above'.

Mr. Cook: These amendments provide for the position, which was debated on Second Reading and in Committee, of the North-West industrial development association. The amendments follow the wording of subsection (4)(b), which provides for any accounts audited and presented by the organisation to be presented to Parliament. Therefore, I nurse a hope that these amendments will not turn out to be defective.
The amendments intend to provide a minimum of parliamentary scrutiny for any requirement that the Government may place upon the development organisations to match Government grant from local resources—in other words, from contributions from local authorities. It is precisely that requirement that has provided the greatest controversy in our debates on the Bill. The controversy springs from one of the earliest decisions of the Government to reduce the previous level of contribution by the Government to these development organisations. The level that the Government inherited from the Labour Government was based on a formula under which every £2 provided by the Government had to be matched by £1 from local authority resources. The Government altered that formula to the disadvantage of local authorities by obliging them to match each £1 of grant with £1 of local authority contribution. At the same time the Government carried out a brutal assault on the level of support to local authority expenditure, which has made it impossible for many local authorities to make their contribution to development organisation finances.
Here we come up against the point raised in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who fairly and properly pointed to the absurd anomaly, which we witness time and again, of the Government urging local authorities to carry out specific functions, take particular actions and accept particular responsibilities, while cutting financial resources available to the local authorities and exhorting them to cut their manpower. The Government do not face the contradiction of exhorting local authorities to accept particular responsibilities and functions while imposing a straitjacket on them.
The consequence for the NWIDA in the past three years has been marked. It has been unable to take up the full grant offer from the Government because it has been unable to obtain from the local authorities in its area a matching contribution out of their diminished resources. Therefore, it would clearly be desirable if Parliament had the opportunity to scrutinise and, if necessary, debate whatever requirement was imposed upon development organisations by the Government in relation to contributions from local resources. That is the technical, and desirable, purpose of these amendments.
The main purpose of tabling these amendments is to give the House an opportunity to return to the NWIDA and the current state of play in its negotiations with the Government. Most hon. Members who are present today were present on Second Reading and in Committee and therefore it will not be necessary for me to provide a summary of the background for new readers. However, I can add something to what the Committee learnt when we debated this subject in early March.
I am delighted to say that since the Committee rose progress appears to have been made between the Government and the NWIDA. On 23 March the Government wrote to the NWIDA announcing that they had approved the programme for the current financial year. In passing, I point out that great difficulties are created for non-governmental organisations if their financial resources and programmes are secured only eight days before the start of the relevant financial year. This point was raised with the Minister several months before that financial year drew to a close.
More significantly, on 14 March the Minister of State, Department of Industry climbed down from his previous position. He has effectively offered to go to arbitration on the dispute between the NWIDA and the Government. He has told the NWIDA that he will accept a report by an independent firm of consultants, which has yet to be chosen, on how best £1 million could be spent in promoting industry in the north-western areas.
That is an encouraging sign. The sum of £1 million is substantially larger than the sum that was last on offer to the NWIDA. It is a figure that is broadly comparable to that offered to the North of England development council and it would appear to show that the Department of Industry is now prepared to concentrate on putting the NWIDA on the same footing as the NEDC, which is what it sought on its last application. This is a considerable advance on the position taken by the Government on Second Reading. I should like to think that one of the reasons why the Government have shifted their position so radically is the contributions to the debates in which we have ventilated this matter repeatedly.
In Committee the Minister proved himself fully briefed on the issue and I congratulate him on the effort to which he had plainly gone to obtain the brief from the Department of Industry on his position so that he could advise the Committee on the then state of play. In the light of what I have said, I think that he will acknowledge that there have been a fair number of developments and movements since we had that debate in Committee. I hope that he has had the same briefing from the Department of Industry as he obtained on that occasion.
These amendments should give the Minister the opportunity to bring the record up to date. I hope that he

will be able to give us some insight into the shift in the Government's position and will be able to assure us that there is now a good prospect in the forthcoming financial year, if not the present one, that the NWIDA will attain the same status as that achieved by the NEDC.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall first deal with the two amendments and then do my best to bring the House up to date on the position of the NWIDA.
In the amendments, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) seeks to do two things. Amendment No. 6 singles out as worthy for explicit mention the power of the Secretary of State to make the provision of funds by one or more local authorities a condition of grant-in-aid to a regional development organisation. Amendment No. 7 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a copy of any condition imposed upon him by amendment No. 6.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said, there have been extensive discussions during the previous stages of the Bill on the present application of my right hon. Friend's power to impose a condition that a regional development organisation should draw matching funds from local authorities and the Government. It is clear that the Secretary of State has this power, but he does not always make this a condition if other arrangements are appropriate.
The spirit of the first amendment is to make explicit the power to impose that condition, but the amendment is not technically acceptable. It suggests, in effect, a precondition that must be agreed between the Department of Industry and the regional development organisation before the grant is handed over. The burden of subsection (4) and the three illustrative conditions that are spelt out there all relate to good practice in handling and accounting for the grants. The amendment is different in kind and not appropriate to subsection (4).
The burden of the argument on these two amendments was that any such conditions should be laid before the House. I assure the House that we intend to do this. We accept the desirability of letting hon. Members see copies of the conditions that are attached to these grants by the Secretary of State. For the current year, my hon. Friend proposed, in his written reply of 19 January announcing the grants, that copies of the conditions applying to the grants would be placed in the Library. This has now taken place. It has taken a little time because the Department of Industry had no wish to impose the conditions without consultation. Therefore, my hon. Friend wrote to the organisations, enclosing a copy of the conditions in draft, and gave them the opportunity to comment. Now that the texts are clear, they will be placed in the Library. This will demonstrate to the House that we shall be publishing the conditions. Hence, we believe that the amendment is not necessary.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the NWIDA. I can confirm in outline the bringing up to date of the story as he told it, but with a slight difference in emphasis which is important. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding, particularly as I am a Treasury Minister and as this matter is being handled in detail by my hon. Friend at the Department of Industry. In view of our previous discussions, it is important that this matter should be made clear. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry has put to the chairman of the NWIDA a specific proposal for an independent study to


establish how best the north-west might be promoted for industrial development. I hope that all concerned throughout the region will give the most careful consideration to this idea.
I understand that on 18 March the executive committee of the NWIDA immediately welcomed the proposal in principle. The NWIDA is currently seeking the views of local authorities and the new town development corporations. The proposal is for a study by an independent firm of consultants to consider how best the north-west could be promoted for industrial development on a budget of about £1 million per annum. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, arbitration as such. The consultants' fees are to be paid 75 per cent. by the Government and 25 per cent. by the NWIDA. There is no commitment on either side to accept the result of the study, but it has been proposed by my hon. Friend and accepted by the NWIDA as a constructive way forward. Everyone intends that the study should find a solution to what has proved to be a difficult problem in the past. I would very much welcome that solution, but it is right to put a Treasury caveat on it. It is not arbitration, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but a study from which both sides hope a solution will be found.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Minister for making that statement, with the approval, I presume, of the Department of Industry, if I may put it in those terms without causing offence to the great dignity of the Department of State that he represents. I am glad that a solution appears to be approaching in the NWIDA case. I recognise, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, that what is on offer is not perhaps binding arbitration, but it is not unfair to describe it as arbitration as both parties have agreed to involve independent advice. It does, as he said, offer a positive way out of the developing stalemate and I should like to think that our debates have contributed towards that. It is ironic that on this occasion the Minister has come further towards meeting the thrust of my amendments, which I tabled purely as a peg for a debate on the NWIDA, than on other amendments of a more substantive nature. I welcome his assurances that these conditions will necessarily be published and will be placed before the House. That is a positive and desirable step. In the light of the Minister's reply, I am perfectly satisfied to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

POWER OF CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS TO GRANT LEASES

Mr. Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
'(2) No lease shall be granted by the Crown Estate Commissioners on the foreshore or seabed without public advertisement of the application for such a lease.
(3) No lease shall be granted by the Crown Estate Commissioners on the foreshore or seabed conferring private fishing or mooring rights in coastal waters where common fishing or mooring rights have been exercised by custom.'.
The amendment relates to the Crown Estate Commissioners. It would qualify the right of the commissioners to grant leases for the seabed or coastal waters. When we debated this matter in Committee I did

not, in my innocence, think that clause 5 which extends the period for which the Crown Estate Commissioners can grant a lease, would apply to their powers to grant leases on the seabed and in the coastal waters since that power is not specifically mentioned in the Crown Estate Act 1961. I was therefore rather surprised when the Minister advised the Committee, in terms which he has since repeated to me by letter, that clause 5 does apply to the rights of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to the seabed and coastal waters.
The letter that I received from the Minister since we debated this matter in Committee assured me that the commissioners are not contemplating granting 150-year leases on the seabed and coastal waters. I am relieved to hear it. Most of the leases that they have so far granted for the creation of fish farms are for the short term, with very few of them exceeding 10 years, although one runs for 60 years. Nevertheless, the awkward point remains that, as a result of the clause, it will now be theoretically possible and legally competent for the Crown Estate Commissioners to grant leases on the seabed and coastal waters for 150 years.
My anxiety on this point is heightened rather than relieved by the concluding page of the Minister's letter, in which he listed the one exception where it is possible that the Crown Estate Commissioners will take advantage of the greater period of lease to grant 150-year leases for the seabed and coastal waters. I should like to put on record the appropriate passage of the Minister's letter. It says:
But they might wish to use their powers to grant such leases in respect of the seabed—for example where seabed is associated with the development of adjoining dry land, such as in the establishment of a marina with deep water berths or the construction of a deep water jetty where commercial considerations, including the magnitude of the capital investment, might make a lease for more than 99 years appropriate.
As those who were present in Committee will recollect, the one specific example that I gave to show why I was anxious about the use of the powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners with regard to the seabed related to the development of a marina. As my hon. Friends will recall, the case involved the Scottish Development Agency and related to the development at Ballachulish where for some time the SDA had been attempting to promote a marina. The SDA invited tenders and had protracted negotiations with two competing commercial companies. It eventually decided to grant the lease of the land that it owned adjacent to the loch to the successful company negotiating for the contract, only to discover to its amazement, to the consternation of the company and to the severe annoyance of the local people that, while this process was going on, the Crown Estate Commissioners had conceded a lease on the adjacent seabed to the rival company.
That has left both the SDA and the successful company in a difficult and delicate position, as it is plainly awkward to develop the marina when it has rights only to the land and not to the seabed immediately adjacent to the foreshore. Given that example, I am uneasy that we are providing in clause 5 for the Crown Estate Commissioners, in similar secrecy, with similar lack of advertisement and similar lack of consultation with other involved interests, such as the SDA and the local community, to grant such a lease for up to 150 years.
Having reflected on the matter since the debate in Committee, I am persuaded that it would not be right to


try to solve the problem by circumscribing the period of the lease, because that would not deal with the real problems at issue. It might be more appropriate to try to regulate the way in which the leases are granted, whether for 10 years, 99 years or the full 150 years. The amendment therefore proposes two qualifications to the commissioners' right to grant longer leases in relation to the seabed and coastal waters.
The first qualification would oblige the commissioners to advertise any application for a lease of this kind. That would remove at a stroke the difficulty that occurred at Ballachulish, as it is highly unlikely that the commissioners would have concluded the lease if the application had been advertised and the SDA had had the opportunity to call attention to its own interest in the site. It would also remove the difficulty highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on Second Reading. Fishermen in his area discovered that a licence—I accept that it was a licence rather than a lease—had been granted by the commissioners for exploration for minerals such as sand and other aggregates, which would in part involve exploration within the trawling grounds of local coastal fisheries. The point at issue is not that the licence was necessarily in error but that it was granted without advertisement or notification of local fisherman or local authority interests and was discovered by accident by the local community, although the community clearly had far more at stake than the commissioners in such a development.
I shall not repeat in detail the further illustration that I gave in Committee as many Members present today were members of the Standing Committee. It related to the commissioners' practice in registering leases for fish farms. As I understand it—I put this to the Committee at the beginning of March and it has not since been challenged or corrected by the commissioners—for a payment of £20 the commissioners will register an interest in an area of the seabed for anyone who can find his way to their office in Charlotte Square and express his interest in an appropriate chunk of the seabed.
Fish farming can make a useful contribution to employment in rural areas adjacent to the west coast of Scotland and there are many areas on that coast in which fish farms can appropriately be created. It is therefore desirable that that investment should be promoted in areas in which it is appropriate. It is equally desirable, however, that the creation through such a lease of a private right over a portion of the seabed should not be used to extinguish an existing public use.
The second qualification in the amendment would prohibit the granting of a private lease by the commissioners for parts of the seabed which by custom and practice have been used by the local community as areas for mooring or for practising fishing. The provision is required because on repeated occasions in recent years, since people began to register with the commissioners for fish farms, local communities have found that traditional fishing or mooring areas have been converted into private fish farms as a result of the acquisition of private leases from the commissioners.
In Committee I cited the celebrated case of the island of Tanera, off Achiltibuie, in which a mooring right enjoyed for centuries by the local community was given

in lease by the commissioners to a private individual for the establishment of a salmon farm. Moreover, the local community discovered that the lease had been granted only when the successful applicant advertised for a manager for his fish farm. Until then, no one in the area had had any idea that a private right was to be created which would complicate their traditional fishing pattern and the way in which they gained their natural livelihood.
There is also the case of Mr. Macleod of Macharichil who five times in recent years has discovered that the commissioners have granted rights for private fish farming in areas which he fishes.
In cases of that kind the commissioners are not creating the opportunity for investment that will stimulate local employment. On the contrary, they are disrupting traditional patterns of employment and complicating and threatening traditional means of supporting the local economy. I find such behaviour thoroughly unreasonable and I am sure that most hon. Members would regard it as regrettable. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian has considered the introduction of a ten-minute Bill to try to remedy the situation, but it would be far simpler if it could be remedied by amending the clause in this Bill relating to the commissioners powers to grant leases.
I have no doubt that my amendments are defective in some way, as these are arcane corners of the law. I have attempted to grapple with the rights of the commissioners which, as the Minister's letter fairly states, are not explicitly laid down in statute but rest on the generality of the commissioners' powers and on a number of legal cases, all of which took place around 1900. I have also attempted to express in legal terms difficult concepts not normally rendered in legal form. I hope, however, that the Minister will not rest his reply on the technical defects he has discovered, or which his officials have discovered for him, but will respond to the amendment in the spirit in which it is moved and address himself to its substance.
Having considered the matter since the Committee stage, I am convinced that there is a genuine problem and that it would be wrong for the House to extend the length of lease that the commissioners may grant as radically as the clause proposes without as a parallel measure providing some safeguards in relation to the granting of leases in this controversial area.

Mr. Wakeham: When I first saw the clause, with the proposal to increase the period of leases, I did not realise what a complicated and difficult area we should get into before the Bill reached its present stage, or indeed before it became law. I fully accept that, if it is complicated and difficult for me with the advice upon which I can call, it must be very much more so for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) in opposition. I shall therefore make very little of any drafting defects and hope to give as full an answer as possible. I hope that my reply will show an ability to listen to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, perhaps not to give him complete satisfaction but to make it clear that the Government's mind is not entirely closed to some of the problems which he has described, and that we are still seeking a solution.
It may help the House if I begin by reminding those Members who were not party to the Standing Committee discussions that the clause would extend the powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners by allowing them to grant leases of up to 150 years in place of the present maximum


of 99 years. That of course relates to market demand for urban developments. The present amendment relates to the problems of fishery rights in Scotland, and as such, although not to the people whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is peripheral to the purpose of clause 5. I hasten to add that that does not mean that it is not important in its own right.
7.30 pm
The problems go far beyond the concerns of the commissioners, or indeed of Scotland. Thus, the Bill is a wholly inappropriate vehicle to tackle these problems. Further, the problems are highly complex. This, I think, is why the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have had such difficulty in framing amendments to the Bill, both in Committee and now. It is not that their ingenuity is lacking. Even if the conclusion were that statutory provision is needed, I have serious doubts about the feasibility of adapting the present Bill to achieving it. It would be technically complex, and to do anything meaningful and effective would almost certainly go beyond the scope of the Bill.
Perhaps I can best illustrate the problems by looking at the amendment in more detail. It falls into two parts. The first requires that before a foreshore or seabed lease is granted the application shall be advertised. The first thing to note is that, insofar as a lease relates to development—within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Acts—by a tenant on the foreshore, the amendment is unnecessary because the position is effectively safeguarded by planning legislation.
I cannot go into specific details about the marina. I should have thought that almost certainly the proposed marina project would have been the subject of a planning application before it could have been achieved. The effective safeguard is the fact that the planning application would be necessary.
It should be noted that the amendment does not attempt to define "advertisement". Does it for example mean a notice in the London Gazette, or one pinned to a board on the foreshore? However, these are technical defects that could in principle be remedied.
But we need also to examine the purpose underlying the amendment. If it is simply to safeguard the position of existing public fishery and navigation rights, the amendment is unnecessary. Those rights are already protected by common law, and any lease that purported to encroach on those rights would have no such effect, and all leases of foreshore or seabed granted by the Crown Estate Commissioners are expressly made subject to those rights. If, however, the amendment is effectively an attempt to extend planning legislation by the back door, the Bill is not—indeed cannot be—the appropriate vehicle. Leaving aside all the complex procedural provisions that would be needed, such subject matter would be far outside the scope of the Bill.
What is more, this should not, ideally, be a matter for the commissioners. It is not their task to assess the appropriateness of any particular proposal in the light of all the interests that might be affected. If a mechanism were set up, I have no doubt that the commissioners would undertake to accept the outcome—as they have, for example, with the proposals to dredge for marine aggregates on the seabed.
I can well understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to pursue this issue. It has been cogently argued in

the speeches today and in committee. I and the commissioners certainly accept that there is a real problem. What I cannot offer at present is a clear solution. Any solution that involved an extension of planning law would of course go far beyond the scope of the present Bill. In the case of dredging, to which I have referred, there is an extra-statutory consultation procedure which seems to be working well. However, the number of cases that could arise in respect of fish farming leases would be very much greater than for dredging, and it may be that such a procedure would simply not work.
What I can undertake is to draw what has been said in the debate to the attention of my right hon. Friends who have responsibility for these matters. I very much hope that they will be able to devise a workable arrangement, but I can make no promises. There are practical difficulties to be considered—not least whether central Government should become involved in matters that are properly of local concern. What I can say is that if it does not prove possible to devise anything better, the Crown Estate Commissioners, who are genuinely concerned about the problems, will do their best to alleviate them. Given the complexities, it is far from clear what that might involve, but I can undertake that Parliament will be informed of the outcome, though it may not be possible to do that during the passage of the Bill.
The second part of the amendment is intended to ensure that the Crown Estate Commissioners cannot grant leases that would impinge upon common fishing or mooring rights by granting private fishing or mooring rights. That is based on a misunderstanding, because the problem to which it is addressed cannot exist. In the case of fishing, this is because subjects of the Crown have a right to fish in tidal waters—except to fish for salmon in Scotland. Since the time of Henry II the Crown has not been able to grant private fishing rights in the tidal waters of England and Wales because Magna Carta made such grants illegal. Had the hon. Gentleman represented an English or Welsh constituency, he could have rested secure in the knowledge that his constituents' fishing rights were protected by Magna Carta. Unfortunately, Magna Carta has no authority north of the border, but I can assure him that Scottish subjects now have similar rights to their English and Welsh counterparts, and that the only private fishing rights that the commissioners can grant are for salmon. They have from time immemorial been let out on nine-year leases in a rotating cycle annually by way of public tender. Thus, the commissioners cannot grant a lease conferring private fishing rights in coastal waters.
In the case of mooring rights, it works the other way round. Common law mooring rights do not exist. The only exception to this is that in England—but not in Scotland—common law mooring rights could in theory be established by adverse possession. Where such legal rights existed, any grant by the commissioners would be subject to them. For those reasons, this part of the amendment is unnecessary.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said and undertaken to him, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Cook: In the light of the antiquity of the legal provisions that the Minister has discovered, I would be a rash man to persevere against the brief with which he has been presented.
The Minister said that, when he first read the clause, he did not anticipate the legal byways and the complexity of the thickets into which he would be drawn. Nor did I, I assure him. I am impressed that we have found a vibrant echo of Magna Carta resounding down the years. With the characteristic arrogance of Scottish education, I was brought up to believe that the Scottish legal position at the time of the Magna Carta was infinitely superior to the rights of Magna Carta and that habeas corpus was already in existence for the Scottish gentlefolk concerned. The point was glossed over by history teachers that Magna Carta tidied up fishing in coastal waters for England more neatly than we have ever achieved in Scotland.
I shall reply to some of the points of substance that the Minister made. I take his point about planning constraints restraining the successful company that obtained the lease for the seabed at Ballachulish from proceeding with the marina. It cannot use the lease to any advantage to itself without planning permission. The difficulty that was created at Ballachulish was that the same applied to the other company that was successful in getting the lease on the foreshore. A stalemate was then created by the creation of a private right for the company that had had the wit to obtain the lease on the seabed. Although planning controls are effective in stopping and inhibiting development, they are limited and ineffectual in promoting development.
I note what the Minister said about common law protecting traditional fishing rights where a private right is created. That is fresh news to me and will come as fresh news to some of those who believed that their traditional fishing rights had been disrupted and do not appear to be aware of that remedy at law. I shall consider that point with them.
Having made those points in response to the issues of substance that the Minister mentioned, I recognise that he has come a long way to answer the anxiety that I have expressed on this occasion and in Committee. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised that there is a real problem. I was encouraged when he hinted that legislation might be desirable, although perhaps not in the context of this Bill. I have no wish to try to tidy up planning legislation through a miscellaneous financial provisions Bill or even the Finance Bill which we shall shortly consider in Committee. Perhaps these issues are better resolved by other legislation or other administrative action.
I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to consult the relevant Departments. Perhaps I can press him to ask them to communicate with me so that I can consider the outcome of the review with my hon. Friends. I am gratified that our debates have set in motion such a review. I hope that it comes to fruition in the anticipation that it may result in a less technically defective solution than the one I have proposed. I am happy to seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Wakeham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I commended it to the House, not as a sweeping matter of

principle, but as a collection of sound administrative measures to tidy up or regularise existing arrangements. I do so again now.
During the passage of the Bill I have been pleased that a number of its clauses, at least, have been welcomed by the House.
I shall mention clause 3 first. Its object, as the House will remember, is to write off debts of £13·4 million owed by Zimbabwe to the Consolidated Fund.
The House has also supported the measure to widen the scope of Treasury guarantees, and clause 6, which gives the Treasury power to redeem a number of annuities which have been a charge on public funds under legislation dating from the last century.
Perhaps most warmly of all, the House has welcomed clause 7 which provides increased flexibility for local authority councillors when they make the choice between receiving attendance allowance or financial loss allowance for performing the approved duties of their councils.
I shall now deal with those parts of the Bill on which there was considerable discussion both in Committee and on Report.
Both sides of the House have welcomed the general purpose of clause 1 in giving greater financial and administrative freedom to the Development Commission. Most of the concerns expressed have been to ensure that the new independence is real and can work for the good of rural areas. If we have disagreed with suggestions for amendment, it has been for practical reasons.
Both on Second Reading and in Committee there was considerable discussion of clause 2, but I hope that it is fair to say that a general welcome was given to the clause, which in essence is no more than a desirable piece of tidying up. It provides for the first time a specific statutory authority for the Secretary of State for Industry to make grants, out of money voted by Parliament, to bodies representing the English regions for promotional purposes.
Clause 5 has led to a good deal of fascinating technical debate. Perhaps it has not always been central to the main purpose of the clause, which is to enable the Crown Estate Commissioners to comply with their statutory duty to obtain the best return from the estate, in the light of current market circumstances by enabling them to grant longer leases.
This, then, is the Bill that we have before us, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Cook: Those hon. Members who have taken part on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—it must be said that they are a small and tightly-knit group—are entitled to view this Third Reading with satisfaction, though perhaps not with relief. We have had some useful debates that have provided opportunities for hon. Members to raise issues that would not normally have been raised. Nevertheless, as the Minister has said, the issues have been aired with purpose and in a constructive and positive spirit.
I said at the outset that the Opposition took no exception to any of the Bill's provisions. We then thought that, in some of the clauses, we were extinguishing rights that went back to the 18th century and that there was some legal number in the Bill as it was presented on Second Reading. We did not discern then, as we learnt later in our proceedings, that, far from dealing with the 18th century, we were dealing with Magna Carta and the 12th century.
We object to none of the Bill and there is some of it which we warmly welcome. I echo what the Minister said about clause 7, which has brought desirable and slightly overdue relief to those councillors who find themselves unemployed halfway through a financial year. As that clause reminds us, some of the Bill is necessary only because of the economic recession in which the nation finds itself. Clause 7 would not be so essential if it were not for the growing numbers of councillors who, like the people they represent, find themselves out of work.
Clause 2 makes statutory, as opposed to administrative, provision for the payment of grant to regional development organisations. As we said on Second Reading, and repeated in Committee, despite many of the debates that we have had about its application, the general principle of clause 2 is welcome. We are happy that the development organisations of the four regions of England will have a clear and open statutory basis for grant to be paid to them to promote inward investment. Nevertheless, we are entitled to conclude, as we began on Second Reading, pointing to the context in which that provision is made.
There are now far more severe and rigorous regional problems than there have ever been since the second world war. When we consider that clause 2 provides total grant of less than £2 million for those four regional development organisations in any one year, we must put that in the context of the White Paper that was published at much the same time as the Bill, which provided for a cut in regional development expenditure from £600 million to £474 million. That represents a cut of 25 per cent. in one year. That savage and brutal cut which the Government have imposed on regional development sets a stark and sombre background against which we must welcome as a modest and timid step towards regional development the much more limited provision in clause 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Plant Varieties Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Commitee), considered.

New Clause 1

Alteration to effect of 1964 Act (No. 1)

`In section 2 of the 1964 Act the following subsection shall be inserted—
(5) A plant variety discovered growing in the wild outside the United Kingdom may become subject to plant breeders' rights only with the consent of the government of the country in which the variety was discovered and the applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the controller that he possesses this consent.":.—[Mr. Hooley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause might appear self-evident to the layman as a common sense proposition. I suspect that many laymen might be startled to learn that a wild plant variety can be patented by anyone in any circumstances.
Clause 2(4) of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 reads:
References in this section and Schedule 2 of this Act to the discovery of a plant variety are references to the discovery of a plant variety, whether growing in the wild or occurring as a genetic variant, whether artificially induced or not.
In other words, it is possible to secure what, for shorthand, I call patent rights or plant breeders' rights over a variety of plants which no one has bred or produced or done any work on in terms of breeding but has simply been found somewhere by people who are interested in looking for different plant varieties. In other words, it is at least theoretically possible for a plant breeder in the United Kingdom, or in other industrialised countries, to discover a natural variety of plant that has existed and grown happily for thousands of years in an obscure region, to pick it, to bring it back to the United Kingdom and to assert patent or plant breeders' rights. The plant will have been not bred, but simply discovered by a firm or a plant breeder. As a layman, that seems to me to be a curious concept.
We are accustomed to patenting machinery, equipment, devices and tools on which the human mind has expended time, money and ingenuity to produce. Although the concept is philosophically doubtful, it is widely accepted in the industrial world. However, the idea of exercising a patent right over and receiving royalties from a plant is curious. That is what the original Act provides with the words
the discovery of a plant variety … whether growing in the wild … whether artificially induced or not.
The matter is of fundamental scientific importance and is not purely academic, because to breed new strains of plant there must be a continuous process of upgrading the genetic varieties. Plant breeding frequently produces varieties that may seem good initially, but are subsequently found to be vulnerable to disease or climate. Therefore, one must vary their genetic constitution. The plants that we are considering are the staple food of millions of people. The world's storehouse of new genetic resources is largely the Third world—Asia, Africa and Latin America. The ability to acquire new plant varieties from Third world countries and to use them is scientifically and practically important. Therefore, the


House should consider that aspect, the consequences of current legislation and whether it is satisfactory in the closing years of the 20th century.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I made proposals that were unacceptable to the Government. They may have been drawn too narrowly, too rigidly or not carefully enough to satisfy our aim. The new clause does not purport to prevent or to hinder the discovery of new varieties of plant, nor is it intended to prevent the patenting of such discoveries or the exercise of plant breeders' rights as set out in legislation. We accept that the discovery of a plant variety involves cost and effort. One does not just wander round the Amazon forest and find such plants. Experts must be flown there to look for plants, which must be brought back to the United Kingdom and propagated. The new clause seeks to ensure that if wild plants are discovered whose genetic composition is important to the breeding of plants for practical use in industrialised countries, the Third world country concerned should consent to their removal. When an application is made for plant breeders' rights, the applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the controller that he has secured the consent of that Government.
It is feared that the botanical treasures of the Third world—the enormous variety of wild plants—will be plundered by richer countries. Third world countries are sensitive about that. They are aware of how in recent decades—or even centuries—their mineral resources have been plundered and of the ferocious arguments at the law of the sea conference about access and rights to the mineral riches of the seabed. Their wishes have been disregarded and flouted by powerful countries, including Britain. They are also aware of the power of multinational companies, which are heavily involved in plant breeding in Britain and elsewhere. They are nervous about what will happen to their botanical treasures if there is an indiscriminate right to patent discoveries as opposed to cultivated seeds.
To reinforce the view that this is not just an academic point, some Third world countries are refusing permission to companies to look for wild plants. They include Madagascar, the Ivory Coast, Brazil and Malaysia. This matter is of immediate practical and political importance. The new clause seeks to bring in an element of fair and open dealing between the advanced industrial countries, which have considerable expertise in plant technology, and Third world countries which are vast storehouses of the raw materials for plant breeding, but which do not possess the technology.
8 pm
If I understand the Bill correctly, it introduces the idea that if a variety is discovered, bred and subsequently patented or made subject to plant breeders' rights and the flower, fruit or vegetable is then produced in the United Kingdom, the plant breeder will have the power to discriminate against imports of that variety of flower, fruit or vegetable and keep out the same or similar varieties produced in the country of origin.
A British firm could send its experts to collect a wild variety of flower or vegetable, return and breed from the plant for similar purposes as in the country of origin. If that country wishes to export its flowers or vegetables to us, under the terms of the Bill the plant breeders will rush

along to the controller and say, "No, we bred that plant. We cannot stop you growing it in Kenya, Tanzania, Brazil or wherever but you are not going to export it to us." Those countries are becoming important exporters to the United Kingdom market of out-of-season vegetables and various types of flowers for decorations.
The original material could have been discovered in Kenya, brought to Britain and used to develop a variety of plant. If the Kenyans then wished to develop, grow and export it as part of their export trade, they would find that it was kept out of the British market, even though part of the genetic constitution of the flower or vegetable involved originated in their country. Indeed, it may have been taken from their country without their knowledge and consent.
A related problem is that there might be discrimination against individual varieties of plants or vegetables from certain countries on political grounds. This point was raised in Committee. The Minister wrote to me subsequently saying that the United Kingdom has never placed politically inspired embargoes on the release to other countries of plant genetic material. I am grateful to the Minister for pursuing that point and giving that assurance. While I entirely accept what he has said in respect of the United Kingdom, that does not appear to have been so in the United States. That is a danger.
The fundamental point that the new clause seeks to make is that there shall be open and honest dealings between the two sides in respect of the discovery and use of wild plant varieties originating in the Third world.
If this type of clause is not inserted in the Bill, not only will Madagascar, Brazil and the Ivory Coast, as well as the other countries that I have mentioned, object to such material being collected, but, if it is necessary formally to ask for the consent of Third world countries before collecting such material, they will refuse. The business of discovering new genetic resources for plant breeding purposes may come to a halt, but I doubt that. However, Third world countries clearly have an interest in the production of better seeds and new varieties of crops.
The United Kingdom is fortunate in possessing world famous institutions for plant breeding and the related technologies and sciences. Everybody throughout the world understands Kew in terms of plants. Wellsbourne, the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge, the Tropical Products Institute and the Centre for Overseas Pest Research also deal with the problems of protection and storage of crops. Those institutions are highly regarded and greatly respected throughout the world, especially by Third world countries which use those resources and skills.
The new clause would be a signal to Third world countries that, far from wishing to plunder their botanical resources, we wish to deal honestly and fairly with them. This will eliminate the suspicion and mistrust which undoubtedly exists and establish better dealings and greater confidence between the two sides that their mutual interests are being looked after.
Britain has the technology in plant breeding, but the Third world countries have the raw materials. The new clause purports to promote a fair deal between the two sides.
I commend the new clause to the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I fully understand and sympathise with the motives behind the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield,


Heeley (Mr. Hooley). His anxiety, expressed in the House, for the Third world is well known and I understand it. The Government would certainly not condone the removal of plant material from another country heedless of that country's interests or wishes or in contravention of its legislation. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons the new clause is not acceptable.
The effect of the new clause would be limited to varieties discovered in the wild outside the United Kingdom and only to those that were submitted for grant of plant breeder's rights in the form in which they were collected. It would not extend to material discovered in the wild and used as part of a breeding programme involving other material, which is the more likely practice.
The eventuality which the new clause seeks to control occurs extremely rarely and nowadays only in the sphere of ornamental plants in the major agricultural and horticultural species. The days have long passed when an explorer in a distant land would chance upon a plant capable of immediate commercialisation, even then at some financial risk and outlay. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Heeley say that he appreciated that that was not a likely circumstance today. The vast majority of modern varieties are the result of intensive and costly breeding programmes, or they are discovered in the course of such programmes. The new clause may be seeking to shut the stable door long after the horse has bolted. Rightly or wrongly, the main collection of wild species from overseas took place many years ago.
An objectionable feature of the new clause is that it would make a grant of plant breeder's rights in this country dependent upon action in another state which the latter is under no obligation to take and might have no interest in taking or might only be ready to take subject to the imposition of unacceptable conditions. Any country is at liberty to impose controls on the release of plant material. The hon. Member referred to some countries that had taken this action. They are at liberty to do so if they consider it desirable. However, surely it is not for the United Kingdom to initiate an attempt to legislate on behalf of other countries.
Evidently, there is a risk of conflict arising between the interests of countries seeking to protect their plant genetic resources and those of plant breeders in other countries wishing to use such material. To obviate that risk there may well be a need for a more structured international arrangement to govern the conservation and exchange of genetic material, such as that which is under consideration in the FAO, which the United Kingdom has supported in principle. Therefore, a lasting solution to the problem perceived by the hon. Member for Heeley lies in that direction and not in unilateral action by individual countries.
Adoption of the procedure envisaged by the new clause in the United Kingdom would unfairly put our breeders at a potential disadvantage compared to their competitors in other countries, who would not be subject to the same restrictions. There would, moreover, be administrative problems. Enforcement of the proposed requirement would present formidable difficulties. It would be well nigh impossible to distinguish between discovered material and that which had been bred. It would be extremely difficult to determine whether material originated abroad or in the United Kingdom, and the authenticity of a document purporting to grant the consent

of the country concerned might often not be readily ascertainable—[Interruption.] I have given three examples of possible administrative problems.
The new clause is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary and anachronistic in seeking to shut the door long after most of the wild species have been discovered. The solution to the problem that it envisages lies in international agreement of the kind that I mentioned earlier. The United Kingdom will readily participate in discussions to that end, and is already doing so in the FAO.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: This is the first occasion that we have had to discuss the Government's Bill on the Floor of the House. On 17 February the Bill was discussed in a Second Reading Committee and was discussed again in Committee on 3 and 8 March. As the Minister knows, the Bill's purpose is to amend the base statute, the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, in order to extend the protection and rights given to plant breeders in this country in respect of the sale of products for which they have been responsible.
The new clause refers, I believe, to section 2(2) of the 1964 Act, which states:
The applicant"—
that is, the applicant who is applying to the controller for plant breeder's rights—
must be the person who has bred or discovered the vareiy, or his successor in title, and the provisions of Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect as respects priorities between two or more persons who have independently bred or discovered a variety.
I am glad that the Minister agrees that there is concern about this issue in the Third world. Indeed, there is proper concern throughout the world about the future of our genetic store of "natural" plant varieties. We discussed this rather big subject in Committee and it does not fall within the ambit of the new clause. However, there is deep concern. I understand that the principle is that the law gives protection to plant breeders and the Bill promotes an extension in time.
8.15 pm
However, the protection of the law also implies certain obligations and duties. The new clause refers not to anything bred or discovered in the United Kingdom, but to anything that is discovered in the wild—not bred in a breeding station—in another country. The Minister's reply was not very convincing. It was full of the sort of phrases with which we, as Back Benchers, are all too familiar. They trip easily off the tongues of Ministers and the pens of those who advise them.
First, the Minister said that the Government would not condone improper behaviour by plant breeders collecting in other parts of the world. She may not have used those exact words, but that was the implication. How on earth can the Minister make such a claim? On the one hand, the hon. Lady says that this is all out-dated and that it does not happen very often, and on the other hand she says that she would not condone bad behaviour if it occurred. She cannot have it both ways. If it does occur, I cannot see what statutory, administrative or other controls there are on those involved in it. Therefore, I should have thought that that phrase alone would extend the fears of Third world countries.
The Minister then said that it would be difficult to distinguish between varieties in the wild and "other material". She did not exactly say what that was. Perhaps she will tell us at the end of the debate what that "other


material" is. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) clearly refers to the natural environment and not to that which is in or adjacent to any plant breeding station abroad. I should have thought that that was clear from the wording of the new clause. Having said that all this did not really happen, the Minister said that, when it did happen, only ornamental plants were involved, as if they were not significant. They may not be of commercial significance in terms of food or crops, but is the Minister saying that they are not of financial significance? We all know that people may pay more per plant for an ornamental plant than for a food crop. Keen gardeners in Britain know that only too well, and good luck to them. However, it is certainly a matter of financial consequence. Who has not heard, for example, of orchids? Therefore, the Minister's sentence did not strike a chord with me.
The Minister also said that it would be unfair to impose on another state conditions as to what should be done in this country. However, are these wild plants, which the Minister says are not now of great importance in our plant breeding programme, the property of anyone other than the people and the Government of the country from which they are taken? I should have thought that prima facie they were their property. Out of courtesy, if nothing else, one would have expected the condition to be granted if plant breeders' rights were to apply in law. I am not suggesting that such consent should necessarily apply to someone bringing back a plant to put in his back garden who has no intention to use it commercially. I am not suggesting that conditions should be written into our law concerning what other countries should do. As the Minister rightly said, other countries can put conditions on such exports if they wish, and for whatever purpose.
To say that we should not ask the permission of another country for plant specimens and cuttings that are given legal protection under this Act is illogical. The Minister then said—someone must have been looking around for all the possible disadvantages—that the provision would place our plant breeders at a disadvantage compared with other countries that did not have such a provision. However, she said earlier that all this was not really relevant anyway. If that is so, how can the provision place those countries at an advantage? I suspect that the Minister has a list of all the possible disadvantages, but they are not necessarily compatible.
Then the hon. Lady came to the good administrative Whitehall standby, administrative problems. As my hon. Friends know, I do not discount administrative problems. Frequently, they are very important, and all too often they are ignored by some Ministers, particularly Chancellors of the Exchequer. The hon. Lady then said that there might be some difficulty in the documentary evidence about the authenticity of the consent. I suppose there could be. However, is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that it would be too difficult for the Government to tell whether a document issued by the Minister of Agriculture in some other country was not the genuine article? That is what she said. I do not find that a convincing argument. Of course, it may be difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to satisfy itself that the stamp of the Kerala state in India was authentic, but I have no doubt that it could get help from the Foreign Office.
For the reasons that I have given, I do not find the hon. Lady's resistance to the new clause in any way convincing, and I look forward to her rejoinders to my few observations, although I am sure that my hon. Friend has further observations to make.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I have listened with great care to the debate, because it repeats some of the matters that were raised in Committee. I find the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to this debate no less unsatisfactory than her replies in Committee. The hon. Lady has failed to take on board the deep resentment that is felt in much of the Third world and in sensitive areas of this country that it is possible for plant breeders in this country to exploit the genetic resources of the Third world without any adequate protection of Third world countries, in a wholly unscruplous exploitation of their genetic wealth, if not their monetary wealth. Although I accept some of the hon. Lady's technical strictures about the wording of the new clause, until I have from her a clear undertaking that this Government, in the international convention through the FAO and so on, are prepared to take much more seriously the requirement to protect the Third world from piracy of this nature, I shall not allow her to get away with the reply that she has just given and the replies that she gave on Second Reading and in Committee. To say that it never happens or that if it happens it only happens to unimportant ornamentals is no answer.
As the law in this country now stands, the power of the United Kingdom Government is put behind an accidental acquisition, with or without the consent of the country from which the plant is acquired. The plant is then used as a source of genetic material, or in its own right, without being hybridised. On that, we have had no clear answer. At one stage it appeared that a plant breeder's right could be obtained only if the plant had been used as material for hybridisation. At other times, it seemed that it could be used of itself, without any hybridisation.
Let us take the case of an orchid. If I had the good fortune to win the pools and go on an orchid hunt in the Brazilian jungle and found a new orchid, as the law stands, if I could smuggle it out of Brazil—

Mrs. Fenner: Brazil is not a member of UPOV.

Mr. Hughes: Although Brazil signed a convention, it is not yet a member. I shall read out the 16 countries that are members of UPOV. They are: Belgium, Switzerland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, the United States of America and South Africa. Brazil is not a signatory to UPOV. So, if I find a new orchid on an expedition up the Amazon, I can bring it back. I do not need to use it for hybridisation, and I can acquire a patent right. Thereafter, the sale of that orchid throughout the world can be inhibited. If someone tries to sell it back to Brazil I can say, "No way. It is a patented variety." If I sell it to any of the named countries, I can acquire a plant breeder's right on it.
That is unacceptable in the relationship between Third world countries and the advanced world. I accept that if a chance form of maize growing at the roadside in Honduras or Guatemala is brought back to this country with the permission of the Government of that country, and then through the scientific skills of Nickerson or


someone else is turned into a commercially useful form, some recompense should be paid for that commercial aspect. However, that is protected under the new clause. It should be done only with the consent of the donor genetic country.
I shall not be satisfied until we are given a much clearer undertaking that this Government will pursue a positive approach internationally to enable the donor countries of genetic materials to protect their own resources. I cannot advise my hon. Friends to seek to divide the House, but I trust that the Government will realise that the hon. Lady's reply is unacceptable and that we require that something close to the spirit of the new clause should be contained in the negotiating posture of Her Majesty's Government in the international forum of the FAO convention. The Government should go to the discussion on the new convention with the spirit of new clause 1 as part of their remit for negotiation.

Mr. Hooley: I shall reply briefly to what the Minister said, although my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) dealt cogently with parts of her speech. Basically, there were four points. The first concerned competitors. I should have thought that the existence of a clause of this nature in our legislation, to which the British high commissioner or ambassador could point, would be a passport for our people going to Malaysia or Brazil or anywhere, and would show clearly that what we were doing was straightforward and above board. We should state clearly that we are asking for the permission of the country and say broadly what is our interest. If other competitors were known to be prowling around without such a provision, this would place the United Kingdom in a better light and give it more prestige and advantage in this activity.
I have already pointed out to the Minister that we have something to offer in return. We have internationally famous and prestigious institutes which deal with aspects of tropical agriculture and plant breeding. We could offer to make available our technology and say that we were writing into our legislation a provision for fair and honest dealing between the two sides. The competitors' argument works the other way.
8.30 pm
Then there is the weird argument of the Government that we cannot get authentic certification from other countries. Has the Minister never heard of a thing called a passport? Every year we accept millions upon millions of documents issued by foreign Governments to authenticate the right of individuals to visit this country. Millions and millions of travel documents are issued by foreign countries and our Government Department, called the Home Office, accepts these as authentic documents for all purposes. The argument put forward by the Minister is the most weird that I have heard from the Civil Service for a long time.
A further argument is that this is somehow anachronistic and that nothing interesting will be discovered in the wild in future. That is the most arrant nonsense. I shall quote to the Minister just one plant that is becoming extremely economically important. Its usefulness was discovered only relatively recently. That plant has the weird name of jojoba. It was discovered only a few years ago, either in Mexico or California. It is important because it grows in and ground and produces a form of oil that can be used in the leather industry and for

cosmetics as a substitute for the oil of the sperm whale. I know that this plant was not bred here. I think that it was developed in the United States.
The idea that there will be no new discoveries of plant varieties of economic, food or vegetable importance in the next 10, 20 or 30 years is rubbish. Scientific knowledge on breeding and genetics is growing at such a staggering pace that a brilliant use might even be discovered next week for dandelions from our back gardens. The notion that in the whole of the Third world, Asia, Africa and Latin America there is not likely to be anything useful discovered and that we are shutting the door after the horse has bolted is utter drivel. I am sorry that the Minister should come up with such an argument.
Subject to the approval of the Chair, I hope to deal more fully with international agreements on the next new clause. I find the Minister's arguments unconvincing and in no way effective reasons for not accepting the new clause.

Mrs. Fenner: At the outset I should point out that I was not referring only to ornamental plants as though they were not important. I was making the point that such discoveries are so rare—I did not say never ever, but certainly rare enough—as not to require special legislation about things found in the wild.
Many of the points referred to by hon. Members were made on previous stages of the Bill. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the concern felt in some Third world countries. I can only reiterate the comment that I made before, that those countries are at liberty to impose whatever conditions they desire to protect their plant genetic resources. This is fully accepted. Let the countries concerned impose the conditions. Some have, and undoubtedly others will, but not the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) will refer to the international situation and perhaps I may come back to it later, but the solution lies in international action. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom might be a valueless gesture if other people took wild material and were not subject to restriction by the countries concerned. We shall look for international agreement in the FAO. That is the right approach.

Mr. Mark Hughes: It might be helpful if the Minister made it clear that there should be an international solution rather than a national one, especially for the developed countries. Will she assure us that she will argue for the spirit of the new clause at the FAO? Will Britain make it clear that the matter should be handled internationally and argue that case?

Mrs. Fenner: In international circles, it would be the province of the countries with genetic resources to make that point. The United Kingdom will be at the international convention and discussions, supporting in principle the concerns being expressed.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

ALTERATION TO EFFECT OF 1964 ACT (No. 2)

'In section 2 of the 1964 Act the following subsections shall be added
(6) For the better protection of genetic resources essential to plant breeding every applicant for plant breeders' rights shall provide samples of plant genetic resources held in his own gene bank to a national research


centre gene bank in the United Kingdom as well as to the appropriate international gene bank organised under the auspices of the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources.
(7) Failure to comply with the requirement set out in subsection (6) above may result in the withdrawal of rights by the controller, subject to a right of appeal by the applicant to the Tribunal.". '—[Mr. Hooley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hooley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with a matter of fundamental importance for the whole range of plant breeding activity. It is concerned with the preservation and conservation of genetic resources, and it endeavours to ensure that they shall not be destroyed or lost—whether by malice or accident—but shall be kept in proper gene banks either nationally or internationally, or both.
The clause is intended to place a statutory requirement on plant breeding companies to provide samples of plant genetic resources either to national research centres in the United Kingdom or to the appropriate international gene banks that already exist.
The conservation of genetic material has become a matter of concern to the international scientific community. It has been argued that neither the public nor the private sector is doing an adequate job of germ-plasm storage. The problem is more acute in the private sector, where companies may not have adequate storage facilities, or may even discard potentially valuable material because of lack of storage facilities.
I understand that in the United Kingdom only three private companies are listed as storing crop genetic resources in the European directory published in 1981 by FAO and UNDP. A conference was held in the United States on biological diversity in November 1981 at which it was argued that the private storage of germ-plasm was poor.
The making available of germ-plasm to other scientists does not have a good record in the private sector. Indeed, that applies also to the public sector. I understand that the Agricultural Institute in Dublin has been imposing restrictions on making material available to anyone not in one of the UPOV countries.
At the American conference, to which I have referred, a Dr. Jim Murray made the following comment:
Some companies treat their germplasm as a proprietary resource. In addition, secrecy has become a dominant characteristic of private sector genetic engineering efforts, and this secrecy is already being extended to private germplasm collections … But without considerable effort on the part of the public sector, especially public organisations already working to preserve biological diversity, the private sector is more likely to be a hindrance than a help.
The new clause does not affect plant breeders' rights in respect of profits or royalties. It does not restrict their rights. It does not restrict the patenting of particular types and varieties in any way. It is intended to make sure that vital genetic material is preserved and can be made available.
The question of access is important. In this respect I want to quote from a letter written by Dr. Lupton of the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge to a Miss Wilkinson of the world development movement. Dr. Lupton—incidentally this is on 16 February 1983, less than two months ago; it is not years back—says:

Your paper draws attention to problems of genetic erosion, arising as limited numbers of more sophisticated varieties become widely distributed. This problem is certainly a real one, but I do not think it is fair to blame it on plant breeders' rights.
He goes on to say:
The problem is well known to plant breeders, who are setting up a range of internationally co-ordinated gene banks in which to store seed of old and new varieties as a source of variation for future generations of plant breeders. You are I know aware of the gene bank at Wellesbourne, and may have heard of others, such as those at Braunschweig (West Germany), Gatersleben (East Germany), Ban (Italy), Lund (Sweden), Leningrad (USSR) and Bettsville (USA). Setting up the gene banks is however only half the problem—it is essential to know what they contain.
This question of having access to them and knowing what they contain is a matter which has been exercising the FAO. Indeed, I was interested to hear the Minister in the previous short debate speaking in glowing terms of international co-operation and the need for it in these matters. I want, therefore, to raise with her one or two points about FAO activity.
In November 1981—less than two years ago—there was an FAO conference at which a resolution was passed calling for a legally binding international convention to govern the exchange of germplasm between countries. The resolution was supported by all the Third world countries, as far as I know, and many industrialised countries as well, including some fellow members of the EC, no doubt, but this Government opposed it. I think that we are entitled now, particularly in the light of remarks made by the Minister a few minutes ago, to explore why the Government opposed it and what their position is, because the matter is going to be discussed again. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is to be another FAO meeting later this year at which the matter will come up again.
I believe that it is important to quote to the House some extracts from the resolution passed in 1981, which the United Kingdom could not be bothered to accept—in fact, actually opposed. It began with the usual kind of preamble:
Recognising that plant genetic resources are indispensable for the genetic improvement of cultivated plants, and that they are in danger of erosion and loss".
That is a considered statement by the world body concerned with agriculture matters—"they are in danger of erosion and loss". The resolution adds:
"Recalling further that in 1974 with the support of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) was set up for which FAO provides the Secretariat.
We have some international machinery which could be used for the clause that I am proposing if it is accepted by the Government. We would not have to establish any massive new bureaucracy.
8.45 pm
The resolution then states:
"Considering that there is no international agreement for ensuring the conservation, maintenance and free exchange of the genetic resources of agricultural interests contained in existing germplasm banks".
I understand from the Minister's remarks that she would be keen to see such an agreement. I hope that that is correct and that she will confirm her keenness. I hope that she will confirm that the United Kingdom, when the FAO reconvenes later this year, will actively press for support for the promulgation of such an agreement. If that is done, it will make all the easier the acceptance of the clause,


which is designed to ensure that the genetic resources held now can be deposited and maintained under international auspices.
The substantive paragraph of the resolution states:
Requests the Director-General to examine and prepare the elements of a draft international convention, including legal provisions designed to ensure that global plant genetic resources of agricultural interest will be conserved and used for the benefit of all human beings, of this and future generations, without restrictive practices that limit their availability and exchange, whatever the source of such practices.
The clause does not seek to undermine plant breeders' rights or prevent plant breeders from getting their royalties. Its purpose is to ensure that they deposit the germ-plasm and the seeds that they hold in their gene banks with international bodies or, as appropriate, with the responsible national United Kingdom bodies.
Paragraph 2 of the resolution states:
"Requests the Director-General to prepare a study on the establishment of an international bank of plant genetic resources of agricultural interest under the auspices of FAO, taking into account the provisions of the proposed international convention as well as on-going national, regional and international efforts in this field in particular those of the IBPGR.
I make no apology to the House for quoting at length from the FAO resolution, which I consider to be fundamental to the problem of ensuring that the genetic resources that are available for plant breeding are properly conserved and that those who hold private stocks of these materials shall be required to deposit samples of them with bodies competent to conserve and look after them in the United Kingdom and internationally. The clause is moved in the spirit of the FAO resolution, parts of which I have quoted.
In case the Government feel that this is anachronistic, that it does not matter or that it will be forgotten, I remind them that the matter will be discussed at the UNCTAD VI conference, which will take place in June in Yugoslavia. The issue will come up within the FAO and Third world countries will press it at UNCTAD.
By accepting the new clause, the Government will acknowledge the problem of genetic erosion, about which all qualified scientists in this subject are worried, and make a move towards dealing with the problem.

Mrs. Fenner: The Government fully share the anxiety which underlies the new clause, that there should be properly structured arrangements, both national and international, for the conservation of plant genetic resources, and to a large extent such arrangements exist already within the United Kingdom. The Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge holds the seed of 25,000 cereal varieties; the National Vegetable Research Station Association has capacity for the seed of 12,000 varieties of vegetables; and the Royal Botanic Gardens has storage capacity for 40,000 mainly wild accessions. There are many other smaller collections.
The public sector is not alone in maintaining these facilities. Although the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has criticised the private sector's contribution, I should like to assure him that breeding firms in the private sector have to retain comprehensive collections of genetic material as a basis for their future development programmes. There is no loss of genetic resources as a result of plant breeders' activities. Indeed, they are taking the lead in conservation.
If valuable genetic material is being lost—I do not accept that it is, within the United Kingdom—the causes

are complex and international. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom will not resolve the problem successfully. It is an international problem. Although the new clause is sincerely motivated, it is unrealistic in that respect.
I should like to correct a point made by the hon. Member for Heeley: the 1981 FAO resolution was not opposed by the United Kingdom. It was accepted by all member states of the FAO. I do not know how this misconception arose. It has been quoted before. We are participating actively in discussions in furtherance of this resolution.

Mr. Mark Hughes: At the second sitting of the Committee on Tuesday 8 March, the hon. Lady said:
The study and resolution of the FAO, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred, will be discussed later this month. However, it concluded that the cost of establishing and running a single central gene bank would be prohibitive. That is why the United Kingdom voted against it." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 March 1983; C. 47.]
A month ago the hon. Lady said that we voted against the resolution. Did we vote against the concept which is enshrined in the new clause or just against the single international centre?

Mrs. Fenner: We voted against the concept of the gene bank but not against the resolution which was accepted by all member states in the FAO. We voted for the principle but not for the way that it was wished to carry it out.
The text of the new clause refers to the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources which was established in 1974 by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. The board's main function is the organisation and promotion of an international network of gene banks. It has been most successful in this task. It has reached agreement already with 38 centres in 28 countries to hold base collections of 33 crops, including the major cereals and legumes.
Discussions are in train within the FAO on the construction of an even stronger system based upon this firm foundation and the United Kingdom is participating fully. There lies the best way forward to more effective conservation of genetic resources.
The effects of this clause would be wholly unacceptable in practice. Were it adopted, a plant breeding company engaged upon development of a new group of varieties would be forced to release its advanced breeding material at risk of samples of it being obtained by their competitors. That would seriously erode its competitive position. It would remove its incentive to produce improved varieties—to the inevitable detriment of our farmers and horticulturists.
There would also be problems of enforcement. Policing of the requirement sought by the amendment would involve the power of entry to breeders' premises and the examination of their stocks of genetic material. That would be a distasteful and unjustifiable invasion of commercial privacy.
The Government believe firmly in the progressive development of the existing national and international network of gene banks. Success here depends on the cooperation of breeders in both public and private sectors. Acceptance of this clause would destroy much of thus cooperation.
The hon. Member for Heeley made a particular point about commercial secrecy, and to some extent secrecy is


necessary during breeding programmes to protect the commercial potential of varieties. Once a variety is marketed it can be and is used by other breeders in research programmes. Advanced breeding lines—those in the course of development—would be of commercial value to the breeder only as long as he had exclusive use of them. To release them prematurely would destroy the commercial base of the private plant breeder. After the varieties are on the market, everybody has access to them. In conservation of plant genetic resources, the effect of plant breeders' rights is positive. There is no good case for the proposed restrictive measure.

Mr. Spearing: Once again I press the Minister on two matters. First, she claimed that the new clause would give rise to the risk of competitors getting in illegally and taking away the fruits of the labours of the breeder. There is no reason why—perhaps not through this clause but in principle—such material should not be deposited, rather as one deposits books in the Bodleian or university libraries. The deposit could be made subsequent to the commercial release of the varieties. The hon. Lady may say that other breeders can go out and buy the varieties, but the Bodleian library could buy its books. Would that not cover the point that the hon. Lady made about commercial risks—even if the point is valid, and I am not conceding that it is?
The hon. Lady spoke of the risks in connection with gene banks in this country and the appropriate international gene banks, but if they are not secure and have been shown not to be so they would not be appropriate for the purposes of the clause. There could be some selectivity about this. The hon. Lady said that the clause would not solve the problem and that the solution must be arrived at on an international basis. Even if we accept that argument, would not this provision go some way to deal with the problem, given that the security aspect could be overcome?
Secondly, will the hon. Lady define further the reply that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), who properly intervened to ask about the way in which Britain voted? The Minister told us in Committee that we did not vote for the international gene bank because she feared that it would be too big, too bureaucratic, too expensive and too low a value for money.
I can understand the Government's hesitation at that vote, but the question put at that vote is all-important. Is the hon. Lady against the concept of an international organisation which uses existing gene banks, which could perhaps be given accreditation in the international agricultural community? There could be a common exchange of these materials with proper safeguards under such an arrangement, to which Her Majesty's Government could give approval. If the hon. Lady is in favour of such a move, what is she doing about it? Surely there is a big difference between establishing a new orgainsation such as the one she described in Committee and promoting some form of genuine international co-operation.

9 pm

Mr. Mark Hughes: The Minister's reply was not wholly satisfactory. It was based primarily on the commercial problems facing the establishment of gene banks.
One understands that a private research station faced with the 10 or 12-year time span to bring a new variety on to the market does not want to give public access to the genetic material from which it starts because that will be to the advantage of potential competitors. I do not believe that the new clause as drafted makes that inevitable. It is still available to a gene bank or a national research centre gene bank in the United Kingdom, organised under the auspices of the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, to accept material and hold it incommunicado from potential competitors until such time as its commercial importance to the donor has been realised. I do not believe that that argument against the new clause stands up. It is entirely possible within the wording of the new clause for such gene banks to be established and for the organisers of the gene banks to restrict access to the material contained therein until such time as the commercial value to the donor has been safeguarded.
I believe that the Minister's arguments both in Committee and today were based on a reluctance to work towards a gene bank. When the Government go to the FAO and try to establish an arrangement which, from their replies, they have shown they wish to seek, their argument will be much strengthened if new clause 2 is accepted as part of United Kingdom law. That would set out the framework within which they would understand and comprehend the international arrangement to work. Therefore, I urge the hon. Lady to consider this matter carefully. Neither of her arguments about confidentiality and competitiveness is insurmountable as the clause is drafted. It would strengthen the Government's hand when they go to the FAO if the new clause were incorporated into the Bill as an earnest of the way the United Kingdom wishes to consider the problem of genetic material preservation.

Mr. Hooley: I find the Minister's reply unconvincing, for the reasons given by my hon. Friends, and I wish to make three brief points.
First, the Minister said that we have important facilities in this country for preserving genetic material. Of course we have. If we did not, the new clause would make no sense. As I said earlier, we have enormously important and prestigious institutes with international recognition and outstanding reputations. That is the basis on which the new clause is drafted.
Secondly, the Minister said that there must not be premature release of germ-plasm or other genetic material from private plant breeders. The new clause says nothing about premature release. It does not say that anyone has to release anything prematurely. It simply says that if seeds, cuttings or other propagating material is there—it can be patented and the plant breeder's rights established—a small sample must be provided for the United Kingdom recognised institute and the international one. That is all. It does not say that the plant breeder has to release the material prematurely, give it to his competitors, lose his rights on royalties, or anything of the sort. That argument is nonsense. There is no such implication.
In a sense, the provisions of the new clause are on all fours with copyright laws and the legal requirement to deposit a copy of any book published in the copyright library of the British museum. That in no way infringes the author's rights to income or royalties or the publisher's right to market the book. The new clause makes a


comparable proposal. Unless my knowledge of the English language is extraordinarily faulty, there is no reference to the word "premature" or anything like that at all. I simply cannot understand the Minister's argument.
Thirdly, with regard to the FAO convention, the Minister completely misled me—unintentionally, I am sure—as I had the distinct impression on Second Reading that the Government had opposed the FAO resolution, or certainly the spirit of it. Indeed, according to the quotation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), the Government actually voted against it. Perhaps they voted against something else, but when the Minister replied to me in Committee she certainly gave the impression that the Government had opposed the resolution. Indeed, she spelt out various reasons for so doing. She said that it was bureaucratic, cumbersome and expensive. She gave all kinds of reasons why the Government did not like it. Now she tells us that they did not oppose it at all.
I accept the Minister's good faith in her statements in Committee and in the Chamber today. I am sure that she is doing her best to explain to the House and to the public at large exactly what the situation is, but so far she has not made herself very clear. We are entitled to a clear statement on the Government's attitude and policy at the forthcoming FAO meeting on this issue. Do the Government intend to support an international convention and the establishment of the international gene bank system and to accept the new clause so that effective use may be made of it? We need more clarity. I certainly do not accept the arguments so far adduced by the Minister against the new clause.

Mrs. Fenner: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) does not accept the arguments. We believe that the new clause would have an adverse effect on the commercial freedom and performance of the plant breeding industry, which would be compelled to release the material that was being developed for the production of new varieties. It is not exactly the same as a book. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the Bodleian library.
I should like to reassure hon. Members about the Government's support in FAO and what is happening at the moment. At the meeting from 21 to 30 March the FAO committee on agriculture examined a report discussing the possible establishment of an international gene bank and outlining the elements of a draft international convention on the conservation and exchange of plant genetic material. At that meeting there was widespread support for the principle of the convention, but opinion was divided about the international gene bank. The United Kingdom welcomed the idea of a convention, but expressed doubt about the need for a new gene bank as such facilities already exist under the IBPGR, which should be strengthened and encouraged.
Those issues will be considered further by an ad hoc working group that has been set up to assist the Director-General in preparing his report to the FAO council. The United Kingdom will be a member and intends to play a full and constructive role. Decisions on whether to proceed with the convention and the international gene bank will be taken by the FAO conference that follows the council

in November this year. Any convention would be unlikely to be adopted before the next FAO conference in the autumn of 1985.
At that meeting, several delegations, principally from Latin America, saw the need for an international gene bank or a network of gene banks under United Nations control. They considered IBPGR inadequate in not being subject to such control. The United Kingdom believes that unless and until it is demonstrated that the IBPGR is failing and cannot be improved it would be wrong to change the existing institutional arrangements. We believe that we should seek to strengthen them.
During the nine years of the existence of the IBPGR, it has developed a worldwide programme in nearly 100 countries. Its achievements were highly praised by delegates at the meeting. The board consists of 17 members, at least four of whom must be from developing countries. I am sure that it will reassure hon. Members to know that currently seven on that board of 17 are from developing countries. It was established by and is funded through the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, which in turn is co-sponsored by FAO, the World Bank and UNDP.
Therefore, with an organisation of such impressive standing already in operation, it seems superfluous and an imprudent use of money and resources to set up another international body. Opposition Members sought my reassurance on the Government's attitude to the present FAO discussions. I hope that I have been able to reassure them on that.

Mr. Hooley: I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. Will she confirm that it is the United Kingdom's policy to strengthen the existing system under the IBPGR?

Mrs. Fenner: That is what we believe. We believe that we should strengthen the organisation. Setting up a new gene bank is another thing altogether. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured about that.
Several hon. Members have said that the clause as drafted does not force the breeder to release material, but it does. It would force the breeder to release all material within his possession, not just protected varieties I can only reiterate that we believe that that would be such an invasion of commercial privacy as to deter plant breeders. If they were deterred, undoubtedly that would be to the detriment of agriculture and horticulture.

Question put and negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mrs. Fenner: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
If hon. Members have any additional points to make, I shall, with leave of the House, be happy to answer them.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I hope that the Third Reading debate will be brief. We have had a fascinating Second Reading and Committee stage. I reiterate my regret that the Government chose not to submit this Bill to the Special Standing Committee procedure as we were faced with a set of highly esoteric and scientific bits of conflicting evidence about which hon. Members on both sides of the House had great difficulty in finding adequate sources of expertise on which to make judgments. We were forced to make judgments and divide in the absence of sufficient


information. I regret that the Government did not see fit to use the Special Standing Committee procedure. This is a classic example of a Bill which is not party political or partisan in any sense but contains matters of deep scientific and chemical complexity. Every hon. Member on the Committee would have been helped by that procedure and having experts to advise us.
Although I understand and ultimately accept that there is a great need to protect the plant breeding industry in Britain as a commercially viable and profit-making organisation and to protect a public sector plant breeding facility, to do so at the risk of causing deep offence to our colleagues in the Third world may be a price that we are unwise and should be unwilling to pay.
When we embarked on this Bill, few of us realised the depth and intensity of feeling among many people in the Third world about plant variety protection in general and this Bill in particular. Had I been aware of the strength and complexity of feeling back in November when the Bill first appeared in another place, I should have requested that the Second Reading be on the Floor of the House and that the Bill receive far wider publicity.
The Bill extends ultimately to some deep theological and philosophical points. I regret that such are the procedures of the House that we have not done justice to the internationalism, the Third world element and the philosophical element behind the Bill. Despite the best endeavours of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), to whom I pay great tribute, to bring the subject into a wider context, we have been restricted to discussing whether cut flowers from protected varieties that are reimported should be protected and whether the period of protection should be confined to 25 or 23 years and so forth.
We have been limited to the narrow parameters of the Bill and have lost a major opportunity to discuss the ecological role of plant breeding. Since the original Act was passed in 1964 the opportunities for irradiation and other highly sophisticated methods of genetic manipulation have increased beyond the imagination of our predecessors who passed the original Act. We have done a disservice to ourselves as legislators and to the country by the way in which we have treated the Bill.

Mr. Hooley: I entirely endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). It is a great pity that the Leader of the House did not see fit to use the important new procedure of half Select Committee, half Standing Committee, to deal with the Bill. The procedure was used to great effect on the Bill about the law of the sea, and was extremely valuable in unravelling scientific, technical and legal matters that were difficult for hon. Members to follow. The Bill contains scientific matters of profound concern, and it would have been of great assistance to hon. Members in Committee to have had the opportunity to call witnesses and cross-question them, and to discover matters of which they were ignorant and of which they could have only partial or uncertain knowledge. I hope that the Government will take to heart my hon. Friend's strictures and the representations that I and my hon. Friends made to the Leader of the House at the time, that such a Bill, which deals with rather arcane

and scientific matters of great public importance, should be properly considered under the procedure devised and ratified by the House. The Government urged the House to accept it when it was introduced a few years ago. I hope that the lesson has been learned.
The Bill is restrictive and monopolistic, and I am mildly astonished that a Government who continually praise competition and market forces should have promoted such a Bill. It extends plant breeders' rights, but does not extend public safeguards against the possible abuse of those rights. But the basic problem is how far along the road Britain and other countries wish to go with the concept of patenting living matter. As a layman, I am willing to accept that when people have invested time, energy and money in inventing artefacts, machines or tools, it is reasonable that patent protection should give them a special reward for their effort and prevent others from copying or pirating them. But the patenting of living organisms is different.
How far should we push this? As my hon. Friend said, a biological revolution occurred during the past 20 years. Scientists have unravelled the fundamental structure of animals and plants and have devised methods of manipulating that structure. How far along the road are we going when, as a result of that manipulation—genetic engineering or biotechnology—people are entitled to patent and draw royalties on such material, and perhaps even to exclude others from access to it and its products? Although the Bill amends an Act passed 20 years ago when the implications of the biological revolution were only beginning to be appreciated, we should perhaps pay closer attention to the implications of such legislation for Britain and other countries. We have had some useful debates in Committee and in the House this evening, and I hope that there will be, at least in some quarters, and possibly in the scientific community, close consideration of the implications of the legislation.
As my hon. Friend said, it is not the Opposition's intention to vote on the Bill tonight, but it needs much careful scrutiny, and I hope that the scientific community will do that, and examine its conscience and practices to see whether we wish to have such legislation on the statute book.

Mr. Spearing: I share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Durham (Mr. Hughes) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about the fundamental philosophical and theological nature of the Bill.
The Government will have to consider these issues again and, if not come back with another Bill, examine the coming revolution and assess what they will have to tackle. The House is sometimes accused of not looking ahead. Very often the House does look ahead in debates such as this, but it is not always well reported.
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friends on procedure. Unfortunately, the new procedure of a short Select Committee hearing before the Standing Committee proceedings was not available to the Leader of the House. After the Second Reading in Committee, a motion was put on the Order Paper to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that various points could be elucidated. The Government could have agreed to that, but they did not. I regret that and I trust that the Minister does so even more than the Leader of the House, who I hope will heed these remarks.
The principal question in Committee was whether the Bill was necessary. There was some doubt whether the privileges accorded to plant breeders should be extended. I am not saying that they should not have some privileges, but they do have responsibilities. I pay tribute to their work. Although the House often mentions the vast increase in agricultural productivity, especially in the United Kingdom—it has doubled since the end of the war on rather less acreage—a high proportion of the increased productivity has been due not only to the skill of farmers and farm workers, who have not done very well financially out of the increased productivity, but to the activities of plant breeders. Once the permutation in certain varieties has occurred, the plant breeder is well on his way. We have to thank bountiful nature for the increase in productivity, rather than any inherent skill other than that of the plant breeder.
Discussions in the House have been concentrated on cereals, which is a current agricultural topic. The discussions might have been better if they had concentrated on grass, which is the prime agricultural crop of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, due to an ill-suited common agricultural policy, it has not been given its required prominence. Hon. Members may think of Sir George Stapleton, a pioneer of grass development, and his Aberystwyth station as well as the part played by the public plant breeding establishments in this country, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley referred. A dominant theme in Committee, which has not been mentioned in the debate, was the anxiety expressed about the increasing concentration of the plant breeding industry. The Minister kindly wrote to me referring to some statistics that I used in Committee that illustrated that anxiety, especially in respect of cereals. The hon. Lady qualified the figures that I quoted, but did not doubt their accuracy.
In a letter dated 30 March the Minister set out in a table some of the main conclusions to be drawn from figures that have been quoted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in its lists of agricultural plant species. I shall quote them bacause they show a trend that will cause some anxiety. Spring barley accounts for 31 per cent. of our cereal crops. Nickerson has 19 per cent. of the market. It is an old-established firm, now owned by Shell. Miln Masters (Cardo) has no less than 34 per cent. of the market and, surprisingly, 33 per cent. of the spring barley market is taken by Hurst, which acts as agent for an East German variety. In other words, despite our political differences, a significant contribution to our spring barley comes from East Germany.
Winter barley is 22 per cent. of the cereal crop—Nickerson accounting for 80 per cent. That is Shell once again. Winter wheat is 44 per cent. of our cereal crop. Nickerson accounts for 9 per cent. and the National Seed Development Organisation—the publicly owned farms—accounts for 80 per cent. Therefore, Shell is clearly in a strong position, at least in respect of winter barley. There is some concern that oil-based firms that have a natural interest in oil-based and other chemical fertilisers are also into the seed business. That gives rise to concern, particularly when it reaches a multinational level.
There is great concern throughout the kingdom and in all parties for our natural environment, of which seeds and seed varieties are part. It could just be that the development in the past few weeks of the Environment or

Green Party in West Germany will not be paralleled here—I do not say will be prevented—because we already have a sufficient number of people who not only have green fingers, but are concerned for our natural environment. They are also concerned about conservation, without necessarily being Conservative. This issue should not necessarily become party political. However, that depends on the attitude and behaviour of the party in government.
The Bill has demonstrated, alas, that the Government are not yet sufficiently sensitive to such issues. I hope that the Minister and her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and. Food will take these lessons to heart as the Bill receives, with some reservations, an unopposed Third Reading.

Mrs. Fenner: As the comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) are still fresh in my mind, I should like to follow them up. The Government will certainly stand on their record of introducing the Wildlife and Countryside Act in their concern for conservation. The hon. Gentlema referred, in particular, to the letter that I sent him. I hope that in some way it has ameliorated his concern about the multinationals. He mentioned the spring barley proportion of the total market and pointed out that it was in the hands of Nickerson, but he did not mention the winter wheat proportion of the total market. Spring barley is 31·89 per cent., whereas winter wheat is 44·78 per cent. of the total market. In that seed, the state organisation owns 80·95 per cent. compared with Nickerson's 9·85 per cent. I wanted to reiterate that point to console him a little about multinationals.

Mr. Spearing: I should like to get things right. I thought that I quoted 44 per cent. With respect, and to get the record straight, I think that the Minister got it wrong in her letter. Spring barley is 31 per cent., of which Nickerson has only 19 per cent. Therefore, it has not got a strong hold on that section.

Mrs. Fenner: My point was the high NSDO percentage relating to the highest percentage cereal winter wheat.
The Bill in no way alters the fundamentals of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1954 which established the system of plant breeders' rights in the United Kingdom. It is widely acknowledged that the introduction of this system has been of immense benefit to the United Kingdom plant breeding industry, which had previously been in decline, and to our farmers and horticulturists who have been provided with an increased number of improved plant varieties. The hon. Member for Newham, South paid his own tribute to the yields involved in those new varieties. Countries abroad have also benefited from the growth of our plant breeding industry. Many of our good plant varieties are exported, some to developing countries.
Until this Bill came before Parliament there had been no criticism of our plant breeders' rights system or any suggestion that it was fundamentally misconceived or harmful in its effects. It has been in existence since 1964. The current attack on aspects of the Bill and our system results from a worldwide campaign, mainly stimulated by the International Coalition for Development Action, against the whole concept of plant breeders' rights. There


is no doubt that this campaign is sincerely motivated and laudable in its desire to ensure that the world's plant genetic resources are kept safe for posterity.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the role of the multinationals, I say again, as I said in Committee, that there is no denying that some breeding firms have been taken over by big companies. This feature is not confined to plant breeding. It happens in other sectors of industry. From time to time some plant varieties produced by one or other of the big companies—some of which have been mentioned today—hold a dominant position temporarily in the market. It is a matter of balance. At one time one is dominant, and, as the hon. Member for Newham, South said, at another time another variety holds sway. However, there is no evidence that this is having an adverse effect on the plant breeding industry in this country or on the growers who are eager to buy its products. It provides no basis for an attack on the plant variety rights system in the United Kingdom which gives protection to small and medium-sized enterprises by ensuring that in the matter of grant of rights their varieties are treated on exactly the same basis as those of the large companies.
If there is any well-founded anxiety about possible deleterious effects of structural changes in the United Kingdom plant breeding industry, there are proper channels for expressing it through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission machinery.
Reference was made to the involvement of large companies in both the plant breeding and the agrochemical industries, with the apparent implication that this is sinister in the sense that these companies may produce certain plant varieties not for their high quality but for their susceptibility to diseases or pests and calling for intensive chemical treatment. Surely no company would be foolish enough to risk its reputation in that way. If that allegation is seriously being made, it is up to those who are pointing the finger to produce convincing supporting evidence.
Removal of plant genetic material from developing countries must be a cause for concern and raises important international issues. I accept the philosophical approach of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) to this matter. In fairness, however, it should be remembered that such material is a world heritage—arguably not the private property of any single country or group of countries—and that its migration and exchange has been going on for centuries.
I understand the wish of Opposition Members to have a Special Standing Committee procedure on the Bill. However, they were present when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not invoke such a procedure. As the Bill makes no fundamental change to the 1964 Act, but merely extends the limits, I understand why my right hon. Friend felt that it did not require that special procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

PART I OF SCHEDULE 1

1. In the entry beginning 'Resident Magistrate' after the word 'Magistrate' there shall be inserted the words 'or Deputy Resident Magistrate'.

PART II OF SCHEDULE I

Additional Entries

2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—
'The British Board of Agré
ment.
The English Industrial Estates Corporation.
The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland.'

Entries omitted

3. The following entries shall be omitted:—
'The Agré
ment Board.
The Civil Service Appeal Board.
A Colonial Currency Board.
An Independent Schools Tribunal constituted under Schedule 6 to the Education Act 1944 or Schedule 2 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
The Industrial Estates Corporations constituted in accordance with the Local Employment Act 1972.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board.
The Panel of Official Arbitrators constituted for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919.'.

PART III OF SCHEDULE I

Additional Entries

4. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—
'Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board.
Chairman of the Distinction and Meritorious Service Committee for Northern Ireland.
Chairman of a committee constituted under section 90 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board.
Chairman of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.
Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Sports Council.
Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Sports Council.
Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland.
Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Sports Council for Wales.
Chairman of the Wine Standards Board of the Company of the master, wardens and commonalty of Vintners of the City of London.
Chief Scientist of the Scottish Home and Health Department.
Director General of the National Economic Development Office.
Medical Officer for Complaints appointed for Wales by the Secretary of State.
Any member of the Mental Health Act Commission in receipt of remuneration.
Member of a panel of persons appointed under Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees.
Member of the panel of persons appointed under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees.
Registration Officer appointed under section 6(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1949.
Rent officer or deputy rent officer appointed in pursuance of a scheme under section 63 of the Rent Act 1977.


Rent officer or deputy rent officer nominated under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.'.

Entries omitted

5. The following entries shall be omitted:—
'Chairman or Deputy Chairman of an Administrative Board constituted for the purposes of any scheme made, or having effect as if made, under section 2 or 5 of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975.
Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards in Northern Ireland.
Chairman of the Cinematograph Films Council.
Paid Chairman of an Economic Development Committee.
Chairman of the Mining Qualifications Board.
Paid Chairman of a National Economic Development Council Working Party.
Correspondent appointed by the Commissions of Customs and Excise.
Director of the British Sugar Corporation Limited appointed by the Ministers as defined by section 17 of the Sugar Act 1956.
Director of the Compagnie Financiè
re de Suez et de L'Union Parisienne appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
Director of the Holding Company referred to in the Transort Act 1962.
Director appointed at a salary of the National Building Agency.
Examiner or member of a board of interviewers appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners.
Examiner for entrance examination to, or member of a board of interviewers for entrance to, the civil service of Northern Ireland.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
Technical Adviser to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Juries Officer appointed under section 1 of the Sheriffs (Ireland) Act 1920.'.

Other amendments

6.—(1) In the entry beginning 'Director of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted `p.l.c.'.
(2) In the entry beginning 'Director of the British Petroleum Company Limited' for the words 'Company Limited' there shayy be substituted 'p.1.c.'.
(3) In the entry beginning 'Director of Cable and Wireless Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted the words 'Public Limited Company'.
(4) In the entry beginning 'Director of International Computers (Holdings) Limited' for the words 'International Computers (Holdings) Limited' there shall be substituted the words 'ICL Public Limited Company'.
(5) In the entry beginning 'Director of S.B. (Realisations) Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.l.c.'.
(6) In the entry beginning 'Director of the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted `p.l.c.'.
(7) In the entry 'Member of a Wages Council or Central Coordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 1 to the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945' for the words 'Schedule 1 to the Wages Council Act (Northern Ireland) 1945' there shall be substituted the words 'Schedule 2 to the Wages Councils (Northern Ireland) Order 1982'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected amendments (b) and (e). I understand it will be for the general convenience of the House if we discuss the motion and the amendments together.

Mr. Hayhoe: This motion seeks the approval of the House to the amendment by Order in Council of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This schedule lists those offices whose holder's are disqualified from membership of the House and it is obviously necessary to keep its detailed provisions up to date. The procedure for so doing is laid down in section 5 of the 1975 Act.
Let me explain briefly. It has been the normal practice for any legislation which establishes new offices or winds up existing offices to amend schedule 1 accordingly and the 1975 Act is reprinted from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to incorporate such amendments. In addition, from time to time it is necessary to bring schedule 1 up to date by Order in Council to add offices which have been created by administrative action, to amend or correct existing entries, and to delete offices which are no longer appropriate.
The procedure laid down in section 5(1) of the Act has been followed on five previous occasions, the first in 1961 and the last in February 1982; the Act was then reprinted—the seventh reprint—with the amended schedule 1 in April last year.
Hon. Members will be aware that during last year's debate on the February 1982 resolution criticisms were expressed of the procedures for updating the schedule and also of some of the criteria for disqualification. I agreed then to bring the latter matter, which went much wider than the issues involved in amending schedule 1 to the 1975 Act, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who subsequently asked officials to carry out a factual review. Their preliminary work is now being considered and some further work has been commissioned. I hope to arrange to publish their factual analysis once this further work is complete. This will take a little time, but it will give a future Parliament the opportunity to take any further action on this question as they see fit.
For the present, I have been able to meet two specific areas of criticism about the updating procedure which were raised during last year's debate. First, the present resolution was tabled some 12 months after the last debate, thus avoiding anything like the previous long delays which had attracted much adverse comment. Secondly, a detailed explanatory note prepared by officials has been made available to hon. Members and I hope that this background information has been of help in explaining and giving further information about the detailed points made in the motion before the House. Also, some six weeks were allowed to elapse between the tabling of the motion and the making available of the explanatory material so as to allow ample time to hon. Members for consideration of all the detailed matters.
Perhaps I should acid that Ministers have been individually responsible for the details of the additional entries and deletions which cover officers within their own areas of responsibility. They have based their judgment on the same general principles and criteria that have been followed in the past, as I explained during last February's debate.
I will not reiterate the reasons for the existence of the House of Commons Disqualification Act except to say that it is concerned with the maintenance of the independence of the House and the safeguarding of hon. Members from undue influence by the Executive through the exercise of


patronage. Rather than say more now, it would probably be better for me to respond at the end to points made in the debate and to the amendments.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I, as in duty bound, have scrutinised those parts of this motion—there is a substantial number—which relate to Northern Ireland. Thanks to the explanatory matter that has been made available, and to the courtesy of the Leader of the House in responding to individual inquiries, our queries and hesitations have fined themselves down to a single point, but one that is substantial.
The point arises in connection with the reference in paragraph 1 to the Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board and with the words in paragraph 5
member of a board of interviewers for entrance to the civil service of Northern Ireland.
It will be noted that I have not rehearsed the initial words of that phrase because they refer to an office that no longer exists, and no problem therefore arises. Both those entries are items which, under this motion, would fall to be omitted.
Upon the face of it, it is a matter for question whether a Member of this House ought properly to occupy any position on a board hearing appeals concerned with the Civil Service in Northern Ireland or a board interviewing persons submitting themselves for recruitment to the Civil Service of Northern Ireland. Therefore, we looked to see what the grounds could be on which these offices were proposed to be deleted from the list of those disqualified. We were told that the reference to the Civil Service Appeal Board follows the amendment relating to the Civil Service Appeal Board for Great Britain. But on consulting the explanatory memorandum, no reason whatsoever is given for that deletion.
We were also told in a communication from the Leader of the House that the appeal boards are not considered to be offices forming part of the judicial system—indeed, we have not been under the impression that they were—but that they were on a par with industrial and other tribunals of which the members are not disqualified. There seemed to us to be little there to explain or justify the excision of membership of that board in Northern Ireland.
I now turn to the position of interviewers of candidates for appointment to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. We are told that it is thought unreasonable to continue to disqualify those interviewers who are not civil servants, who occasionally may be asked to sit on specific boards. Apparently, the unreasonableness is thought to lie in the occasional nature of such an appointment. But very serious inconveniences could flow from even an occasional occupation of such a position by a Member of the House.
I am not sure whether that point is the same as the point mentioned in the letter from the Leader of the House, who said:
where interviewers are asked to sit on specific boards the need for political impartiality is considered by those selecting the candidates.
That is a somewhat obscure comment, but it takes me to the essential matter that causes anxiety to my hon. Friends and myself in connection with the two proposed deletions.
Whatever may be the corresponding position in connection with the Civil Service in Great Britain—the Imperial Civil Service—I do not think that there can be any

dispute that the impartiality of those who make appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, or hear appeals relating to employment in that Civil Service, is of exceptional importance, and that that impartiality ought not merely to exist but to be manifestly seen to exist.
It seems to us that if a Member of Parliament were sitting on such a board, whether of appeal or examiners, it would be virtually impossible for those concerned to regard his position on that board as impartial. The highest view might be held of his character, integrity and judgment. Nevertheless, the fact that he sat in this House as a member of a specific party in Northern Ireland and therefore was committed to a certain point of view on the politics of that Province would inevitably colour, or be assumed to colour, his exercise of his functions in those positions.
I certainly am one of those who, unless the contrary can be argued, are in favour of uniformity of the law in Northern Ireland with the law in Great Britain, and that would apply equally to disqualification for sitting in the House. In this case, however, there appear to be practical grounds relating to Northern Ireland which do not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom and which would therefore justify a variation.
We therefore wish to draw the attention of the House to the anxiety which we feel about these two amendments. We have not tabled amendments, but we would wish that the place of an amendment should be taken by an assurance by the Minister in charge of this motion, which I hope he will be able to give, that although, if this motion is passed in its present form, it will theoretically be possible in future for a Member of the House to hold either of the positions which I have mentioned, as a matter of policy the Government would not contemplate making such an appointment in practice.
I do not think that is as satisfactory as those offices remaining subject to disqualification, as they are at present, but, since the point of view which I have been putting forward is one which we hope the Government will share, there would surely be no difficulty in removing our anxiety by giving the type of assurance for which I have called and which I hope the Minister, when he comes to wind up this debate, will be able to give.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I hope it will be for the comfort and relief of the House if I say straight away that I am not proposing to address the House by way of a speech on this matter. I rise solely on a simple matter of interrogation.
Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Minister to an explanatory memorandum. I may be unique in this regard, but I do not think so, and I have seen no such explanatory memorandum, and on inquiry in the Vote Office I am told that it is in a similar position.

Mr. Hayhoe: Perhaps I could just clarify that. The explanatory memorandum was made available in the Library of the House and has been there since about mid-February. Any inquiries that were made were, of course, directed to the Library.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I have been around in this place for a little time and it is novel doctrine to me that Members are supposed, by some particular instinct, to know that they must scour the Library for documents in regard to legislation which is coming before the House.

Mr. Hayhoe: The position was made clear in an answer to a parliamentary question. It is a well-established procedure of the House that Members are informed through parliamentary questions of matters of this kind and, indeed, of many others.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend may be right. I have only been here for 11 Parliaments—and for the comfort of my hon. Friend I assure him that I shall not be here for many more.
Quite seriously, though, I really do not think I am alone in believing that this is not a very satisfactory procedure. It would be much better to place these things in the Vote Office so that when hon. Members know that the matter is coming up they can draw the document from the Vote Office and study it, and that will answer a good many of their questions. The sort of question that I have in mind is one that can be raised in the amendments proposed to the schedule on page 2511 of the Order Paper under the heading "Entries omitted". The reason for the omission of the entries is not made clear. I take at random a
Director appointed at a salary of the National Building Agency.
To the uninformed Member, that might have a variety of explanations. It might mean, for example, that there was no longer a National Building Agency, or it might mean that there was no longer a director of it although there was still a National Building Agency. It could conceivably mean that, albeit there is still a National Building Agency and still a director, the director is no longer in receipt of a salary.
All those matters may well be made clear in the document which is lurking in the Library, but it would have been more satisfactory—I am sure that there are good answers to these questions—if we had had the advantage of having the document in the Vote Office.
I rose solely to make those observations. In one of the selected amendments I have what could be described as a remote and contingent interest. I am not a recorder and never have been, but I am glad and proud to say that my son is a recorder. On the other hand, he does not aspire to enter this place.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment (b), in paragraph 1, at end insert:—

'Additional Entry

1A. There shall be inserted at the appropriate place:—
Recorder".'.

The debate is about offices of profit and not specifically about interests outside the House, although there are well-known views on both sides of the House about their desirability or non-desirability, as the case may be. My view is that, if hon. Members wish to seek information about how life is lived, their own constituencies, national issues and local issues throughout the country to which they can lend their ears while living on their own salaries will provide them with all the information and experience that they require. I believe that a resolution was passed by the House in the 19th century that stated that nothing done in proceedings in Parliament shall be done for any gain.
As the Minister said, the debate is about a possible clash of interest, the historic control of patronage by the Crown and the risk that there will be Government hacks who are paid by the Crown for holding various offices of profit. There is a risk that that would influence them in their

activities in this place. The debate is somewhat academic in that respect, although no doubt many people would talk about new forms of patronage were it in order to do so.
Amendment (b) stands in the names of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and relates to recorders. Amendment (e), which has also been selected, stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who unfortunately has a prior engagement and is unable to be here this evening, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).
I understand that technically recorders are not holders of offices of profit under the Crown, but I wish to add recorders to the list of additions. I suppose that there is a technical reason that bears on the history of the office that makes recorderships not offices of profit, but I think that for all practical purposes we can regard them as part-time judges. I believe that would be the view of my constituents and the public generally.
Amendment (c), which has not been selected, deals with
Legally qualified holders of part-time judicial offices".
These offices could include assistant recorders and temporary or part-time circuit judges or people of their ilk. It was not until a few weeks ago that I realised that some Members of Parliament occupied these positions. My interest is one of constitution rather than about the office and its monetary rewards. I understand that the monetary rewards are not significant; they depend on the number of hours put in. It is unlikely that there would be any chain of patronage. I am more worried about the propriety of some Members of Parliament sitting in a judicial capacity.
When I came to the House and found that to be the case—albeit a handful of hon. Members only—4 was shocked because I had assumed, incorrectly, that as far as possible—although I admit that there are offices that we must have—the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature was one of the principles of the constitution which should be breached only if there were good and sufficient reason for so doing.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Does the hon. Gentleman include magistrates in his parade of the guilty? Magistrates perform their duties without recompense, but they are the individuals most citizens see on the bench in the overwhelming majority of cases in which they appear in court.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that good point, because I presume that the definition in unselected amendment (c)
Legally qualified holders of part-time judicial offices.
would apply only to those who were qualified in some branch of the law as well as being JPs. I believe that justices of the peace would and should be included under the terms of my amendment.
I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "guilty". I am not expressing an opinion about the rightness or wrongness of individuals who take those offices. I am interested only in whether it is right that it should be possible for them to do so. I hope that I am not giving any cause for anxiety about motive. I believe that there are about a dozen hon. Members involved. I circulated a notice to the hon. Members whose names I obtained from the Library, which I thought was only right.


I have every reason to suppose that they discharge their important office with all the judicial abilities that they possess and I do not criticise them. I am asking the House whether it should be possible for them to be appointed to the office. Subject to any argument to the contrary, the answer must be no.
Of course, in certain circumstances we recognise that there is no separation of powers. We start with the Monarch who incorporates the three aspects of the constitution and who leads on to the Lord Chancellor, the Lords of Appeal, the Home Secretary in certain of his functions, certainly the Attorney-General and possibly the Solicitor-General. All those persons in the performance of their duties necessarily overlap two parts of the constitution.
I am reminded also that what I am saying might apply to some members of their Lordships' House who are not Lords of Appeal and who act in judicial capacities. I believe that that is equally questionable and a matter for debate. The reasons are not personal but constitutional and apply to relatively few hon. Members. I do not know how many, but I suspect that it is about 20. I concede straight away that it is an understandable practice for lawyers. An experienced member of the Bar ascending on odd occasions into the judicial chair can be regarded by lawyers much in the same way as hon. Members regard their colleagues who preside over our Committees as perfectly natural. It might not be quite so natural for those who come before them, because, while lawyers will see their colleagues in the chair, it is only hon. Members who are subject to the judicial rulings of the Chair and not the members of the public whom we represent.
I should have thought that any member of the public knowing—it is only recently through certain instances that this has come to the public view—that the person in the wig in front of them might also be a party politician would, until such issue has arisen, have thought it inconceivable. However, it would be a matter of some concern. For the lawyers themselves, it is not inconceivable that in some of their actions they might have to bear in mind their other office. It is unusual for this to happen, but it might be necessary.
My main concern is public confidence in the judicial system, which my party looks upon sometimes as being a branch of the Establishment. People outside the House regard even a Member of Parliament as a member of the upper hierarchy where it is all fixed. I do not take that view, but the House should be aware of any evidence that it presents that suggests that this is so, and therefore must look carefully at instances where accusations can be made and there is no overwhelming case to be made out for their continuation.
The only arguments that I have heard in favour of this overlap of offices is that it enables active lawyers to keep in touch with what it is like to be a judge, or legislators to keep in touch with what it is like to be a judge. I can understand that from a lawyer's argument, but the House is not here for the law. It makes the law and is not yet run by lawyers. It would not be suitable for anybody of any political party to find out that the person sitting on the Bench in judgment of them was a party political personage of another party. I can imagine the feelings of some of my constituents if they found out that the person before whom they appeared was one of those so-and-so Tory Members

of Parliament. Nor would it be to his liking if a rural gentleman from the hunting shires found himself confronted by another gentleman whom he later found was a member of the Tribune group. That is also possible, although I am not saying that it happens often or at all, but that it can happen. The House would not wish it to happen and we cannot tolerate it with equanimity.
If there is any doubt, we must put the issue to the test of how it affects the public. Hon. Members have many privileges. Some of us sometimes complain about such things as hours and offices and do so without realising how many privileges we possess. We have them for a particular purpose. That purpose has to be demonstrated and anything that would put it at risk has to be questioned.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have met judges who are Socialists but have not had a label applied to them in court. Does not the hon. Gentleman's objection about a constituent knowing that the judge had a particular political view apply whether or not the judge is a Member of Parliament? The real question is whether there is something particular tied to the membership of the House that would make it more objectionable for a recorder to be sitting.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. If a judge has a party political view, to which he is entitled privately, it would not be suitable for that judge publicly to act in a party political manner other than by being a Member of this House. It would be intolerable for a judge to canvass or speak at public meetings or do the things that many hon. Members did before they came to the House. If that is so—I cannot believe that anyone would connive at such conduct—how can it be magically possible for him to do so once he becomes a Member? There are important doubts on this matter.
The Minister of State, Treasury explained the procedures of the debate. I raise this matter because it is time the nettle was grasped and the issue discussed by the House. Even if the Government were minded to accept the amendment I would hope that there would be no sudden execution of the decision of the House. If there is general agreement and there are no arguments against, and if it is the general feeling of the House that the matter should be considered, perhaps the Minister will agree to it being brought back or, if there is sufficient agreement, perhaps he can arrange for the changes in the law to be made so as to give reasonable notice to those who are affected. Anything else would be improper. This matter should be discussed and the practice should not continue. Even if we do not reach a decision tonight, the Government should give us another opportunity to come back to it, because substantial issues are involved.
In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar it is my lot to speak to amendment (e) which would add to the list of excluded offices those of
Chairman or Vice Chairman or Member of the London Docklands Development Corporation.
Hon. Members will know that the London Docklands Development Corporation is a new quango and that there is a similar one for Liverpool. It has been established on the model of the new town development corporations—the chairmen, vice-chairmen and members of which, I understand, are excluded offices—but there is a big difference. Unlike the new town development corporations, which work alongside local authorities, the powers of the London Docklands Development Corporation


displace and in many cases replace those of democratically elected authorities. It is not only party politically controversial—that is certainly so in east London—but a constitutional innovation of questionable status. It may be the case that the remuneration for such offices is not great—I see some agreement from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—but considerable disbursement of Government funds is involved. In London, at least, the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 is administered by the London Docklands Development Corporation and it is within its gift to provide large sums of money—I do not argue whether that is right or wrong—to many organisations in and about east London. That was previously the function of democratically elected local authorities. Therefore, controversy surrounds this matter.
Hon. Members may say that no Government would appoint a Member of Parliament to such an office as it would cause clashes between that Member of Parliament, particularly if he were not a London Member, and the constituency Members for the area involved. Hon. Members may question the necessity for adding the amendment to the Bill. They might say that no Government would have the insensitivity to do such a thing. It may be said that things could be worse and that a Member of Parliament who represented part of the area might be appointed. We should be told, of course, that that could never happen and that if it did the problem could be got round because he would not accept any pay.
I submit that it could happen. Hon. Members will be aware of the dangers of some of these positions. Therefore, whatever the arguments about recorders, it is clearly incompatible to be a member, chairman or vice chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation and a Member of this House at the same time, even for a brief period.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and to comment on amendment (b). I thank the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy in informing me, among others, of his intention to move the amendment.
I shall he brief. First, I declare an interest as a recorder as well as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know exactly how many recorders now sat in the House. As he is no doubt aware, his colleague the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) takes a special interest in these matters and periodically puts down parliamentary questions asking the Law Officer of the day to state the names of Members who hold part-time judicial appointments and the salaries that they receive as a result. According to the most recent answer, 15 Members are recorders, assistant recorders or assistant circuit judges and they include representatives of all three political parties in the House.
The hon. Member for Newham, South is right to say that this is an important matter which should reasonably be debated at this time. He is also right in saying that many of us strongly believe in the separation of powers under our constitution, although he agreed that the separation was blurred in many ways.
I wish briefly to respond to the hon. Gentleman. Sometimes these occasions are looked upon as open season for shooting at lawyers. Far from suggesting that membership of the House should disqualify a person from

being a recorder, or vice versa, I believe that there is a serious argument for encouraging Members of the House qualified to sit as recorders to do so. In the same way, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), Members of Parliament should also be encouraged to sit as magistrates.
I say that for the following reasons. The House spends a good deal of time, especially in Home Office debates, discussing issues of penal policy involving the courts, the adequacy or inadequacy of the penalties available to the courts and the type of penalties imposed by those who sit in the courts, and from time to time making various criticisms of particular sentences passed by the courts.
I say with great respect to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that being a recorder and attempting to sit the 20 days a year that the Lord Chancellor requires of recorders gives one the advantage of an insight into the problems of sentencing and sitting in court, which I do not believe, for example from my own profession, other aspects of legal work provide. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that we are not debating whether people should have outside interests.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am listening closely to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about bringing knowledge and expertise to the House of Commons, and the extra knowledge acquired through being a recorder. Would he apply the same argument to a teacher or a dustman who has special expertise and knowledge about the work that must be done in local government, yet is debarred from serving in that capacity?

Mr. Carlisle: There is a strong argument for saying that those who are involved in the teaching profession can bring a knowledge of education that justifies and qualifies them to serve in a local authority. I think that I am right in saying, if my recollection is clear, that there is nothing that prevents a teacher from standing for local government, but he is debarred from standing for membership of the authority that is his employer. However, there are many people involved in the educational service—and I welcome this—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Many people in the education service take an active part in local government. I think that the argument that I am about to advance applies to them.

Mr. Skinner: What about the teacher or employee of a local authority who would like to take advantage of the option that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has related to the House and serve in another local authority, but is debarred from serving in that other local authority because he is not on the appropriate election register?

Mr. Carlisle: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a bad argument. Whereas—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman should let me deal with the question that he asked. In the non-metropolitan areas there is a two-tier level of local authority. One tier provides the education. Wherever one lives within that local authority, one is entitled to stand for the other tier of the local authority.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall not give way, because I want to make a short speech. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a recorder. He is one of the 15 in the House. I have said that they come from all parties. I accept the point that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made, that the argument that I am advancing applies equally to teachers.
I repeat that I believe that with the opportunity to sit for about 20 days a year in the criminal court trying criminal cases and having to apply one's mind to the problems of passing, where necessary, an appropriate sentence, one can say, I hope without arrogance, that that gives one a unique knowledge and understanding of the judicial system, and the problems of sentencing which other aspects of practice in a legal career do not.
I have never believed that sentencing is other than a most serious and extremely difficult task. It is only when one is faced with trying to adjudicate and decide, in the responsible situation of acting on behalf of society, the appropriate way to deal with an individual who appears before the court that one realises more than ever the adequacies or inadequacies of the sentences that the House makes available to the courts. I believe, I hope without arrogance, that that experience enables one to bring some expertise, understanding and knowledge to debates on Home Office affairs involving penal policy which without that experience one would not have.
Although the hon. Member for Newham, South does not, many hon. Members on the Left of his party tend from time to time to criticise the judiciary for being unaware of the day-to-day problems that ordinary people face. I do not for a moment accept the validity of that criticism, but the hon. Gentleman will agree—he said so at the beginning of his speech—that anyone who is a Member of Parliament has a good knowledge and understanding of many of the problems in our constituencies through his activities as a Member of Parliament. Therefore, to a certain extent, we carry that knowledge with us in regard to the problems of sitting as a part-time member of the judiciary.
The hon. Member for Newham, South said that there was a danger of political bias. Of course there is. We are all conscious of what he said about whether someone is being tried by an active party politician who is a member of a different party. As a barrister, I have on occasion acted for bodies that belong to the hon. Gentleman's party. That has happened to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The same argument can be advanced for magistrates. Many of them are active party politicians. The magistracy is not harmed by the fact that its members are drawn from people who are active in various parties.
I hope that as this issue has been aired the House will feel that, anomaly in some ways as it may be, there are real and practical advantages to the House and that the House would be weakened rather than strengthened if those of us who are members of the legal profession were unable to carry out responsibilities here which we would be able to perform if we were outside the House provided that we had adequate qualifications to be appointed recorders and sit for the relevant period of time.

Mr. Frank Dobson: My approach to the subject will be slightly less higher minded than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in that I regard the amendment as a parliamentary campaign against

parliamentary moonlighters, of which the legal profession is the supreme example. To some extent, the organisation of the legal profession and the organisation of the House are intended to mesh together to make it rather easy for some members of the legal profession to be Members of Parliament and practice at the Bar. I support anything which makes that difficult for them.
I support the amendment because we are discussing offices of profit under the Crown. Recordership is an office, it is under the Crown and it is certainly of profit. I have never heard of a lawyer doing anything that was not for profit. It is certainly not intended to be an office of loss. Recordership is clearly an office under the Crown and of profit to these who hold it.
Defenders of the arrangement may say that it is hallowed by time. If one looks back, one may find that the Member of Parliament for Chester, for example, was Member of Parliament, mayor, recorder and probably high sheriff of the county and all sorts of other things at the same time. It was customary for such offices to be held by one person. It is no longer reasonable for those offices to be held by one person. I understand that some members of the Bar find it difficult to get employment. If we go in for a little job splitting, there will be a few more jobs for lawyers if they are not taken up by parliamentary lawyers who have two jobs concurrently. To say that something should be continued because it is hallowed by tradition is unreasonable. Torture and trial by ordeal were at one time hallowed by tradition, but they were rejected as values changed. I hope that the values of the House will change towards getting rid of the lawyers who spend some time in the House and some time practising at the Bar.
In his cogent argument, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) suggested that it is of value to the House—it may be of some value—to have the expertise of part-time judges when we consider sentencing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that other people are not in the same position, because, although one is not disbarred from the House if one is a schoolteacher, it is rather difficult to get a job as a schoolteacher that one can reconcile with being an active Member of the House, but the legal profession and the affairs of the House are organised so that the two can be brought together. I do not know how many of those admirable recorders take part in debates on sentencing, and it would be interesting to know how many of the distinguished 15 take part in the Committee stage of any Bill relating to sentencing and whether they allow the House to benefit from their experience.
There is an element of separation of powers in the debate tonight. In the office of recorder there is no separation of powers but an all-time amalgamation of powers, because a recorder is someone with a minor role in the judiciary, appointed by the executive and a member of the legislature. It is a three-in-one combination that we should avoid.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's high-minded speech, but can he tell us whether he is a Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen?

Mr. Dobson: I am, but I do not work at the union offices for three or four hours a day, as some lawyers on both sides of the House work in the courts. I spend my time here, and that is what Members of Parliament should do. they should not have two jobs at once.
I support the amendment, and I believe that we should do everything in our power to ensure that lawyers are not in a unique position. We do not believe that accountants should be able to work for the Government and be Members of the House, nor that members of any other profession or trade should be allowed to receive money directly from the Government and be Members. Lawyers can do that. I am against the principle, and any move against it is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Martin Stevens: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that this was not a debate about part-time jobs outside the House for Members of Parliament, but it cannot be anything else. It may be sensible to restate my view of the role of Parliament. We are not imitation civil servants but representatives of ordinary people, living as ordinarily as we can, so that in the cockpit of the nation's debate those taking part should be as close as possible to their neighbours whom they represent. We do not wish to be grey mandarins or distant theorists unacquainted with the changes and chances of ordinary life.
In considering the Act that we are debating tonight, the principle on which I rely is that the minimum number of people possible should be excluded. The wider the range of extra-parliamentary jobs undertaken by Members of Parliament, the better parliamentarians they will be and the better decisions the House will reach.
If hon. Members accept that definition, they will then ask what type of jobs should be excluded from the range of options available to Members of Parliament. The type of jobs must be those in which there is or could be a clear clash of interest. That is why some jobs are, quite properly, excluded. Do the exclusions apply to those practising part-time judicial duties and to members of the London Docklands development corporation? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has said that the magistracy is wisely drawn from prominent local political figures. The horror and alarm of defendants who appear before judges who support the opposite political parties to their own would be rife in every court in the land if that anxiety were well founded.
It is not only Members of Parliament who have known political views. Many of those who serve on elected bodies outside Parliament have more extreme views than hon. Members. Equally, in the case of the London Docklands development corporation, the hon. Member for Newham, South declined to accept as a factor in that argument the question whether or not the individual was in receipt of a salary. My understanding is that the chairman of the corporation, if in receipt of a salary—it may be that the present chairman is not—would be debarred from membership of Parliament, as would the deputy chairman, under the present rules. If either of those directors chooses to reject the salary so that he would not have a pecuniary interest in any decision he makes can a Member of Parliament bring special qualifications to bear on the operation of that corporation?
The erstwhile right hon. Member for Bermondsey, Mr. Mellish, whom no doubt the hon. Member for Newham, South and other hon. Members have in mind, brought a wealth of experience and local knowledge to the London Docklands development corporation and his service has been and remains of great value. Hon. Members should not, in my opinion, bar any Member of Parliament from

any office unless there is a direct conflict of interest between that hon. Member's outside activity and his parliamentary duty. The list of offices from which hon. Members are excluded should be as narrow as possible.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: It is undoubtedly right, but a somewhat salutary thought for parliamentarians to note and remember, that in a job where some may think madness and bankruptcy are distinct possibilities, perhaps occupational hazards, to come here with either involves an infringement of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
I accept that the additions and deletions to parts I, II and III of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 are submitted for our consideration in keeping with section 5(1) of that Act. The Opposition in general accept the arguments advanced by the Minister for his amendments. I carefully noted that the Minister said that this review was based on a report prepared for Ministers by officials and that a factual paper is to be considered and further work undertaken. In that context, I hope that the officials who undertake this further work will take into account some of the issues posed in the amendments, irrespective of their fate if the House divides.
Some of the amendments contain major issues of principle. I wish to make three brief points. First, I should like to comment on the point posed in amendment (d) —which has not been selected by Mr. Speaker—in relation to the
Chairman or Chief Executive of any TV programme contractor under the Broadcasting Act 1981.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not debate unselected amendments.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance in that regard. I seek not to debate the issue as such but to refer briefly to the general principle. Hon. Members on both sides of the House might speculate why that unselected amendment was tabled, but it may well have arisen from the recent dramatic boardroom changes at TV-AM—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not go into detail on that amendment.

Mr. Morris: I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave the issue of that company. However, I hope that my brief comments will be taken into account by the officials who undertake the further review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to amendment (e), which refers to the appointment of the
Chairman or Vice Chairman or Member of the London Docklands Development Corporation".
My hon. Friend was right to say that that corporation was modelled on the new town corporation. He was right to refer to the fact that that organisation disperses appreciable sums of Government money. In the list of omissions referred to in the motion, I noticed a proposal to omit the paid chairman of any economic development committee. I should like to hear the Minister explain why the Government propose to delete that office. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us the detailed reasons


for the omission of those paid posts. Economic development committees make decisions affecting considerable sums of Government expenditure.
Correspondence has taken place between my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the interesting matter of a senator in the Irish Republic and his qualifications for standing for election to the Northern Ireland assembly.
Can the Minister give us an assurance about the consequences that this Act will have on the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act? I look forward to the Minister's considered comments on the matters that I have raised.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not yet have an interest to declaure if I talk about amendment (b)—or, if I have an interest, it is one that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) would call an interest "ad futurum", rather than an interest "ad praesentem", because although I am not a recorder I am about to be trained to become an assistant recorder. I do not know whether I shall qualify for that illustrious post in due course, but I very much doubt whether it will add very substantially to my income.
The amendment was moved in a barely veiled attempt to use this opportunity to kick the legal profession yet again. I say that, not because I intend any discourtesy to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) but because he was prepared to mention the amendment not selected, which is very much "ad hominem" and referred to the person of the former right hon. Member for Bermondsey, and for two specific reasons concerning recorders. First, he claimed that he moved the amendment for constitutional reasons, but surely the constitution has honoured over the years the very blurring of the boundary between the executive and the judiciary of which we are talking. It is part of the constitution, in so far as it is part of the accepted constitutional practice of this country, and has been for many years, that Members of Parliament may sit in a judicial capacity. Therefore, the hon. Member's attempt to call his amendment a constitutional amendment is somewhat thin.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman claimed that he accepted that the purpose of this debate is to establish the independence of Members of Parliament against the control of the state. In other words, paid members of the state should not conduct their affairs, as it were, through Parliament. However, that denies yet another fundamental constitutional precept of our system, that the judiciary, although paid by the state, is independent of it. Once the hon. Gentleman accepts the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental precept, he argues against his amendment, because, if the judiciary is independent, it follows that recorders who are Members of Parliament who operate as members of the judiciary operate not as the vassal of the state who take their state concerns into Parliament but as independent members who are part of a constitutionally honoured procedure.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawrence: In a moment. That is why I say that the hon. Gentleman's speech is a thinly veiled attempt to revert again to the game of "Let's kick the lawyers round the House at a late hour".

Mr. Spearing: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the fact that the judiciary are independent when they are on the bench. I went out of my way in my speech to say that that, I think, would be the wish of every hon. Member, but the point I was making was: would that be believed by the public as a whole? I understand that there is a legal maxim that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I question whether the constitutional fact he has mentioned would be found acceptable.

Mr. Lawrence: In answer to that I would say that this is not a subject which I have ever heard the public in my constituency talking about. To say that they talk of nothing else—

Mr. Spearing: I did not say that.

Mr. Lawrence: —would be rather stretching the subjects of conversation in Burton or any other constituency of which I have any knowledge.
Less veiled was the attack made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson); I am sorry that he seems to have left us for the moment. He more or less said that, if this was another occasion for kicking the lawyers, he wished to rejoice in that opportunity. It hardly lies in the mouth of a sponsored trade union representative who, although he may not work three hours a day or three days a month in the offices of the local union, nevertheless brings to this place the influence of his union and speaks for his union or the trade union movement in the course of parliamentary proceedings, to complain about lawyers who in my experience very seldom take the sort of opportunity we are taking tonight to speak up for lawyers in their own defence. Certainly it is seldom in my experience that lawyers deliberately advance the cause of lawyers by anything very much that they do in this place. [Laughter.] If my hon. Friends, to whom I seem to be causing a great deal of hilarity, would care to look at any speeches I have made in this place they will see that time and time again I have said that we should not go ahead with a piece of legislation which is only going to provide work for lawyers. That has been the gravamen of many arguments I have advanced at late and early hours. Certainly my hon. and learned Friends and colleagues often speak against the interests of lawyers in this place.
It is extremely important that we should have lawyers, and I mean practising lawyers, taking part in what is, after all, a law-making process. If lawyers were not here to give some indication from time to time of the likely effects that legislation will have in the courts, we would produce even more nonsensical legislation than we often do.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does my hon. and learned Friend ever ask himself why it is that this place is so anxious from time to time to kick lawyers around? Could it not be that the House of Commons finds them long-winded and self-satisfied, speaking largely to establish their own mutual self-esteem and almost inevitably with excruciating boredom?

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend could not have described his own speeches in this place more accurately.


Certainly that does not apply to most of my hon. and learned Friends. He is particularly unkind tonight. Perhaps he would like to go out and leave us if he is not enjoying the debate.
It is important to declare that lawyers in this place have an independence which many other hon. Members do not have, particularly sponsored trade union Members. I am able because it is possible for me to revert to my legal profession in due course, should I ever lose my seat, or lose the confidence of my electorate or of my supporters in the constituency, to go out and earn myself a living with an income somewhat more substantial than we provide for Members of Parliament. That gives me a certain independence which does not always apply to hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, some of whom might find it difficult to get work if they were not Members of Parliament.
There are on both sides of the House a number of hon. and learned Members who serve in a part-time capacity the judiciary with considerable distinction. If the argument of the hon. Member for Newham, South were to prevail, it would possibly deprive the House of the services of a long list of distinguished Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). Alternatively, it would deprive the courts of the services of distinguished and eminent lawyers.
There does not seem to be any point in making the system or the situation worse. We should, in this place, be trying to improve matters. To take away good men from useful functions that they do at very little cost for society would be an adverse step.
What about the positions of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General? It often happens that Law Officers of this place become Lord Chancellors. It would be difficult adequately to staff the post of Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, or even a future Lord Chancellor—and I see many around me tonight—if we were deprived of our legal or judicial activities while Members of Parliament. It would be difficult to imagine the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South as a possible Solicitor-General giving advice on the law for many of the Bills that come before the House. To ensure that the calibre of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General is high, we must have practising lawyers of seniority, many of whom sit as recorders in the course of their legal activity.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not prolong the debate further. It is quite clear that the traditional argument for maintaining the inter-play between the judicial system and the legislative system that makes some provision for justice in our country is honoured not only by tradition but by common sense. It is anti-constitutional to seek to disrupt it, and it is anti the traditions and habits of the House.
To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South, I doubt very much that, if the matter was put to the people, they would want to see the end of a time-honoured and valued system such as is proposed in the amendment.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I wish to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had intended to make a brilliant speech, which would have held the House spellbound this evening, about amendment (d), but you have ruled that this amendment, relating to the chief executive or chairman of a contracting television

programme, is out of order. Yet it is a far more serious case than that of lawyers. The Independent Broadcasting Authority, as a condition of franchise, lays down that the programme contractor must be completely unbiased and impartial. It is impossible for a Member of Parliament of any party to be that.
Before you interrupt me Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I fear is imminent, I must ask a question. If you rule against amendment (d) being taken this evening, and I for the life of me cannot see why, how or when can this important matter be raised? If the press is biased, as it is, surely it is vital that television provides some balance. Unless we are able to pursue the amendment, I do not see how that balance can be provided. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how or when I can move such an amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be out of order to discuss amendment (d), as it has not been selected. The hon. Member has been a Member of this place for longer than I have and he knows that there are various ways of raising matters that are of concern to him.

Mr. Allaun: When?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to say when.

11 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It seems that the main purpose behind this Act is not served by the exclusions, inclusions, omissions, deletions and additions that we are discussing, although I am delighted that correspondents who may earn £20 a year in the Isles of Scilly will be able to be elected to this place. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) argued that there should be impartial broadcasting. Parliamentary candidates could be subjected to a quiz on which of the very many offices are disqualified in which they have worked. That might be more entertaining than some stages of the debate have proved to be.
Amendment (e), which relates to membership of the London Docklands Development Corporation, seems rather misplaced if someone can be a Member of this House and leader of a county council, for example. The same public funds are available. There is also the issue of whether the taking of money for the holding of offices is relevant. One of the limitations on Government patronage is the restriction on the number of Ministers. In the recent past Ministers have been appointed when the total number has exceeded the limit. Apparently that was all right if the additional Ministers did not take a salary.
The question of whether money is involved and whether a similar function is being performed by someone else who could be a Member of this place is one that is worth considering. The previous Member for Bermondsey suddenly stopped being Opposition Chief Whip and that led hon. Members to believe that they should no longer do what he said and to contend that he should not have been able to take the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship of the LDDC while he remained a Member of this place.
It seems that over the next year or so it is worth considering the position of recorders. I tended to think of people such as Tom Williams when I was asked whether Members who sat as recorders could properly fulfil that work. My experience of parliamentary colleagues to whom I have spoken and who are recorders has suggested to me that it is reasonable that they should continue to do that work occasionally.
I have never believed that the House sits in the afternoons and evenings for the convenience of lawyers. It does so much more for the convenience of Ministers, who have large Departments to run. I remember the wife of a Labour Member saying that she thought that the best reason for sitting late in the evenings was to ensure that Members were here and not wandering around on their own.

Mr. Alan Clark: I should not bet on that.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend can make his own speech on his own experience.
The major issue is the extent of Government patronage. It would be much more sensible, if we wanted to go this far, to consider placing restrictions on the sorts of job to which the Government could appoint retired Members. It is far more likely that a Member could be seen as having done things during his membership of the House which would lead to him being appointed chairman of the National Coal Board, for example. Leaving that consideration aside, there is a far greater problem for those in my position who are Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Although the number of Ministers is limited, the convention has developed that PPSs should do what the Government want the whole time irrespective of whether their actions have an effect on their Departments.
As we are close to a general election, it is not for me to spell out exactly which part of the Government's policy I thoroughly support and which part I support, especially as the debate is to end at half past 11. Perhaps those who are in my position should say to the Government "If you want our continued support of Government policy, you might give some thought to our views on policy."
The inducement to vote in a particular way is behind the disqualification procedure and restrictions. I believe that the amount of power that Governments have been allowed to take by members of their parties has grown too far. There are an unnecessary number of three-line Whips, and too much legislation is pushed forward without consideration of whether it is necessary. Once it gets caught up in the parliamentary procedure the Government tend to force it through because that is the nature of the system that has developed.
It would be far more sensible if the House and its Members were willing to demonstrate the kind of independence that the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is supposed to induce.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad that the details of the motion have attracted so little criticism. I hope, therefore, that the detailed provisions and the changes that are being made in schedule 1 have the general support of the House. A number of detailed points have been raised and I shall try to deal with them before I come to the amendments which have been selected.
In my initial remarks I referred to the historic reasons for the disqualification provisions which deal with the independence of the House and the protection of Members against the patronage of the Executive. However, one must be aware also that the disqualifications, to which over the years the House has agreed, exclude from membership of the House substantial numbers of our fellow citizens. It is right, therefore, that we should keep

those disqualifications continually under review to ensure as far as we can that people are not disqualified from the House when there is no need for such disqualifications.
The points raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) fell somewhat into that category. He referred to the chairman of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board and the examiner for the entrance examination or member of a board of interviewers for entrance to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. They were omitted from the provisions. They are not appointed by Ministers, so no patronage is involved, and it was thought therefore that people holding those positions should not be disqualified from membership of the House. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need for political impartiality in people holding such appointments. I gladly give him the undertaking in respect of this Parliament that no Member of Parliament will be appointed to the positions to which he referred.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred to the
Director appointed at a salary of the National Building Agency.
He speculated on the reasons for that omission. He was right in one of the alternatives that he put forward, because the company has gone into voluntary liquidation and the position no longer arises.
I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend did not see a copy of the explanatory note. I assure him that the note was produced for the assistance of hon. Members. I am not sure why it went to the Library instead of the Vote Office, but I shall inquire into that and try to ensure that those who should have such notes are left in no doubt as to how they should be obtained.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) referred to the chairman of an economic development committee and wondered why such a person should be excluded from the schedule. This is because such chairmen are no longer appointed by Ministers and receive only a small honorarium. In making that omission from the schedule, we have provided that two of the present office holders will be released from the existing disqualifications, and therefore would be available for membership of the House if they so wished and the electorate so decided.
The right hon. Member for Openshaw also referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act; there is a lose link between the criteria for the membership of the Commons and those for the Assembly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in the House on 26 July last year. Thus, any consideration of changes in the Assembly disqualifications criteria, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend, clearly needs to take account of any discussion of the disqualification criteria for the House of Commons. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendment to the schedule deals with the link between the two.
The main content of the debate has centred on the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the first of which deals with recorders. It has long been recognised that the full-time judiciary must be disbarred from being Members of this legislature, and part I of schedule 1 achieves that aim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) referred to lay justices and magistrates. As he knows, a number of right hon. and hon. Members hold such positions. Although the hon. Member for Newham, South


seemed disturbed by that, I believe—I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham on this—that most people would see no objection to Members of this House being justices of the peace.
The position of recorders is somewhat different. I listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). My right hon. and learned Friend said that perhaps that was something of an anomaly. If it is, it is an anomaly that the House has tolerated for many years, no doubt appreciating that coresponding benefits flowed from it. Throughout this century, recorders have been appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, originally on the recommendation of the Home Secretary, and since 1950 on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
In that time, part-time recorders have been Members of Parliament, provided that the places where they sat as recorders and as Members of Parliament were not the same. They have been paid from central funds since 1972, when the Courts Act 1971 transferred this responsibility from local to central Government. The then Attorney-General made it clear during the debates on the Courts Act 1971 that he thought it right that recorders should be able to sit as Members of Parliament. He considered that recorders brought valuable experience to the House. As far as I know that view was not challenged then, and it has been reiterated firmly this evening by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn.
I understand that 16 right hon. and hon. Members are recorders or assistant recorders, and their practical experience in the administration of justice in different parts of the country is of value in our debates on law and order. They do not by custom, either sit in their constituencies or hear cases remitted from their constituencies. In this sense there is therefore no conflict of interest. Supporters of the amendment have not succeeded in persuading me that that long-established custom should now be changed.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister address himself to the question I put to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) about the double standards that operate at parliamentary and local level, with Members who are part-time recorders being allowed to remain Members of Parliament while teachers or dustmen working in local government are unable to serve on the authority by which they are employed? It is true that they may be allowed to serve when there is a two-tier operation, but they may wish to serve on that authority and to use their expertise in the services rendered.
I have another point which applies directly to the difference. In 1974 the then Member for Hazel Grove, Dr. Winstanley, was involved in a part-time capacity with the medical section of the judiciary dealing with tribunals. Because he obtained money in that part-time capacity, in the same way as a recorder, but was not in that area of the judiciary but on the medical side, he was subject to disqualification unless the then Leader of the House brought before the House a special Bill to relieve him of those difficulties. Why are these double standards operated?

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn dealt effectively with the position of hon. Members who are recorders or assistant recorders and that of members of local authorities who may be employed

by that authority. My right hon. and learned Friend spoke with the authority of a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, knowing very well what contribution has been and is being made by teachers to local authorities. The custom that they should not be elected to the authorities by which they are employed is well established and broadly accepted. But it having been said that it is broadly accepted, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should take a different view. As on so many other matters, he has managed to be out of step with the vast majority of his fellow citizens.
I will bring the arguments about recorders to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have specific responsibilities for these matters. I have no doubt that they will bear in mind the points that have been made.
I should like now to deal with amendment (e), which was discussed but not moved by the hon. Member for Newham, South. The amendment refers to the London Docklands development corporation. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the chairman, vice-chairman and members of the corporation are already covered by an entry in part III of schedule 1 of the Act which disqualifies
Any member, in receipt of remuneration, of an urban development corporation (within the meaning of Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980).
I believe that the existing disqualification is an adequate protection of hon. Members' independence. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to extend this disqualification, for the London Docklands development corporation only, to those who are not in receipt of remuneration.
I cannot accept the amendment. Not only is it inconsistent, in that it applies only to London, but the whole idea of excluding hon. Members from taking part as unpaid members in the work of the corporation seems entirely wrong. It is important that corporation members have close links with the people in the areas involved. In fact, the legislation setting up the urban development corporations requires the Secretary of State for the Environment to have regard to the desirability of securing the services of people having special knowledge of the locality. Members of Parliament, as well as members of local authorities, can play an important and active role in the work of the corporations, as was instanced by the contribution of Mr. Mellish to the London Docklands development corporation during the time that he was a Member of the House. I believe that that former right hon. Member deserves the thanks of the House rather than criticism from the Opposition for the public service that he carried out with the corporation for so long on an unpaid basis.
I hope that the amendments will not be pressed, but if they are I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Spearing: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again very briefly.
The right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) gave an elegant presentation of the one argument that I have heard, and he did very well. If we are to rely on work experience for all the matters about which we legislate, however, there must be special pleading for the


special facilities and for the anomalies that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted. We should then find ourselves in very deep water.
As regards remuneration, the Minister says that the Crown has been responsible for the payments only since 1972. That may be the technical reason why the anomaly has persisted for so long. Nevertheless, it is an anomaly and I am not sure that it is in the best interests of Parliament or of our democratic institutions that it should continue.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) mentioned justices of the peace. Of course there are people engaged in party political activity who operate in a lay capacity locally, but with very few exceptions they are not Members of Parliament as well. That is the distinction that I sought to make.
I understand the Minister's reluctance and I am sure that he will get his way today, but because the anomaly remains I wish, time permitting, to press amendment (b).
On amendment (e) relating to the London Docklands Development Corporation, I was interested to hear the Minister say that that was already covered but only if, as in the case that he instanced, no remuneration is taken. That seems an even bigger anomaly. I am sure that he is not suggesting that if the Minister responsible for sport appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) chairman of the Sports Council that would be all right so long as my right hon. Friend did not draw a salary, but that is the logic of his argument. He says that it is all right for people to be appointed to these offices of profit under the Crown so long as they do not receive the remuneration. Nowadays, however the attraction is not so much the remuneration as the functions of the office and the opportunities and position that it gives the person concerned. As for the Minister's comments about a former right hon. Member of the House, he will concede that I did not refer to that appointment at all.
Therefore, for those who wish to do so as a demonstration, I wish to press amendment (b).

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 92.

Division No. 110]
[11.23 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Hardy, Peter



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Frank Dobson and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Nigel Spearing.


Skinner, Dennis



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Alton, David
Brinton, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Antony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cope, John


Blackburn, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Dover, Denshore





Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neubert, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Newton, Tony


Eyre, Reginald
Onslow, Cranley


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Osborn, John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Fox, Marcus
Percival, Sir Ian


Gardner, Sir Edward
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhodes James, Robert


Gorst, John
Rossi, Hugh


Greenway, Harry
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hawksley, Warren
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Henderson, Barry
Speller, Tony


Hicks, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stevens, Martin


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Howells, Geraint
Thompson, Donald


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Waddington, David


Lang, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Lawrence, Ivan
Watson, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wells, Bowen


McCrindle, Robert
Wheeler, John


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Wickenden, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Winterton, Nicholas


Major, John
Wolfson, Mark


Marlow, Antony



Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Tellers for the Noes:


Mather, Carol
Mr. David Hunt and


Moate, Roger
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the main Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

PART I OF SCHEDULE 1

1. In the entry beginning 'Resident Magistrate' after the word 'Magistrate' there shall be inserted the words 'or Deputy Resident Magistrate'.

PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

Additional Entries

2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—
'The British Board of Agrément.
The English Industrial Estates Corporation.
The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland.'

Entries omitted

3. The following entries shall be omitted:—
'The Agrément Board.
The Civil Service Appeal Board.
A Colonial Currency Board.
An Independent Schools Tribunal constituted under Schedule 6 to the Education Act 1944 or Schedule 2 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
The Industrial Estates Corporations constituted in accordance with the Local Employment Act 1972.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board.
The Panel of Official Arbitrators constituted for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919.'.

PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

Additional Entries

4. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—
'Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board.


Chairman of the Distinction and Meritorious Service Committee for Northern Ireland.
Chairman of a committee constituted under section 90 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board.
Chairman of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.
Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Sports Council.
Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Sports Council.
 Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland.
 Chairman or Vice- Chairman of the Sports Council for Wales.
 Chairman of the Wine Standards Board of the Company of the master, wardens and commonalty of Vintners of the City of London.
Chief Scientist of the Scottish Home and Health Department.
Director General of the National Economic Development Office.
Medical Officer for Complaints appointed for Wales by the Secretary of State.
Any member of the Mental Health Act Commission in receipt of remuneration.
Member of a panel of persons appointed under Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees.
Member of the panel of persons appointed under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees.
Registration Officer appointed under section 6(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1949.
Rent officer or deputy rent officer appointed in pursuance of a scheme under section 63 of the Rent Act 1977.
Rent officer or deputy rent officer nominated under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.'.

Entries omitted

5. The following entries shall be omitted:—
`Chairman or Deputy Chairman of an Administrative Board constituted for the purposes of any scheme made, or having effect as if made, under section 2 or 5 of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975.
Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards in Northern Ireland.
Chairman of the Cinematograph Films Council.
Paid Chairman of an Economic Development Committee.
Chairman of the Mining Qualifications Board.
Paid Chairman of a National Economic Development Council Working Party.

Correspondent appointed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Director of the British Sugar Corporation Limited appointed by the Ministers as defined by section 17 of the Sugar Act 1956.
Director of the Compagnie Financiére de Suez et de L'Union Parisienne appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
Director of the Holding Company referred to in the Transort Act 1962.
Director appointed at a salary of the National Building Agency.
Examiner or member of a board of interviewers appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners.
Examiner for entrance examination to, or member of a board of interviewers for entrance to, the civil service of Northern Ireland.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
Technical Adviser to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Juries Officer appointed under section 1 of the Sheriffs (Ireland) Act 1920.'.

Other amendments

6.—(1) In the entry beginning 'Director of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.1.c.'.
(2) In the entry beginning 'Director of the British Petroleum Company Limited' for the words 'Company Limited' there shayy be substituted 'p.1.c.'.
(3) In the entry beginning 'Director of Cable and Wireless Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted the words 'Public Limited Company'.
(4) In the entry beginning 'Director of International Computers (Holdings) Limited' for the words 'International Computers (Holdings) Limited' there shall be substituted the words 'ICL Public Limited Company'.
(5) In the entry beginning 'Director of S.B. (Realisations) Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.1.c.'.
(6) In the entry beginning 'Director of the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation Limited' for the word 'Limited' there shall be substituted `p.1.c.'.
(7) In the entry 'Member of a Wages Council or Central Coordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 1 to the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945' for the words 'Schedule 1 to the Wages Council Act (Northern Ireland) 1945' there shall be substituted the words 'Schedule 2 to the Wages Councils (Northern Ireland) Order 1982'.

Minibus Service (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Frank Dobson: I shall discuss the proposal by Associated Minibus Operators Ltd. known as AMOS, to introduce a service of 500 private minibuses on four routes across central London. It has applied to London Transport for permission to go ahead. London Transport has held a public inquiry and is considering the submissions that have been made.
If, as I hope, London Transport turns down the application, the application will be subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State. I understand that, because of that, the Minister may have to crib and confine what he says because of the quasi-judicial position of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, this proposal should be debated in the House.
The average London traveller in the rush hour might be forgiven for wondering what 500 minibuses would do to improve the transport or ordinary people across central London, with another 500 vehicles stopping and starting, taking up and setting down, collecting fares, stopping not at designated stops but anywhere they wish, making u-turns and stopping on junctions. Yet that is what is proposed. The general idea is that AMOS will buy minibuses, lease them on a franchise and allegedly control and discipline the franchise drivers. However, if we compare it with the black cab system, we must recognise that there will not be vigorous control. With the black cab system there is rigorous testing and monitoring, and it is possible for a cab driver to lose his licence for bad driving, overcharging, not maintaining his vehicle in good condition or parking it in the wrong place. That rigorous control has been built up over the years to the benefit of the travelling public in London and to the benefit of most taxi drivers, because it makes their system respectable and secure.
Nothing like that is proposed for the AMOS system. It proposes only two inspectors for each of the four routes—that is, eight inspectors for 500 minibuses—which presents the prospect of exceedingly slack and sloppy supervision of services. That characterises the rest of the application submitted to London Transport.
I can do no better than quote the summary of the representations made by the Metropolitan Police about this application, which stated:
The AMOS scheme … is unsatisfactory as it stands and should be opposed on the grounds that: (i) route details supplied are vague and inaccurate: (ii) proposals for turning at route ends and stopping on demand are impractical and in the latter instance would be a source of congestion and possible danger: (iii) little or no consideration appears to have been given to the question of operator licensing, supervision of drivers' hours and records, overnight garaging, the maintenance of vehicles and lost property.
That is a reasonable description of this sloppy application.
Why has the idea been pushed? We are told that such a system works in Hong Kong, so apparently the Government's transport motto is that where Hong Kong goes today, London will go tomorrow. That idea does not appeal to me, but it seems to be the current motto. However, Hong Kong has had considerable problems because of traffic congestion and what might be described as the misbehaviour of the minibus drivers, who have obstructed the passage of other traffic and made life

extremely difficult for all the drivers in the area. They have also made it extremely difficult for the Hong Kong police to supervise them. A report by the Hong Kong Government on this allegedly admirable scheme states that drivers are
congregating in unacceptable numbers at the kerbside and stopping in the middle of road junctions … in an often selfish and aggressive endeavour to pick up passengers. Law enforcement to stop these practices has proved extremely onerous for the police. As (minibuses) are mainly operated by individual owners and drivers it is difficult to regulate their method of operation.
It is proposed that a scheme like that should be introduced in London at a time when the Metropolitan Police are spending more than £30 million a year on their traffic functions and when the newly appointed Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has rightly said that what he wants to do is to concentrate the attention of his hard-pressed police force on battening down on crime. The last thing he wants, I am sure, is to have to spend more money and time on traffic problems created by this minibus scheme.
Would British drivers be any different? I do not think there is any reason to suppose that they would.
A British Government report on the operation of similar minibuses in Kuala Lumpur stated that they
operate with almost complete disregard for the provisions of their franchise"—
with illegal overcharging and overcrowding amongst other things.
In addition, it is stated:
For the first year the system operated more or less as intended, but it then began to change, with drivers turning short, or alternatively asking passengers for an extra fare to complete their journey. When the government tried to enforce traffic regulations the minibus operations went on strike.
What is just as important for the passengers and police of London is that in the case of Hong Kong the minibus operation was rife with corruption. The Commission of Enquiry chaired by Sir Alastair Blair-Kerr in September 1973 heard major allegations of corruption in the transport department, amongst others, of Hong Kong. It also received evidence of police corruption in their relations with minibus operators and owners. It is quite clear that when the minibuses were introduced into Hong Kong in 1968 the Hong Kong public service was absolutely rife with corruption. That was common place. It did not just apply to the transport department.
I must be careful in what I say, because the transport commissioner in Hong Kong at the time minibuses were introduced was Mr. Anthony Shepherd, the man who is the main proponent of the AMOS minibus scheme for London. When describing the introduction of this scheme in her book "Crusade for Justice", Elsie Elliott, a member of the Hong Kong urban council, says that she proposed the licensing of minibuses in 1968 but her proposal
was met with derision by the Commissioner of Transport. 'Legalise those things?' he laughed. 'Never.'
Three months later, after a trip to Japan, the same Commissioner announced that he had decided to legalise the minibuses, not for a limited period, but as a permanent form of transport. It soon became clear that the minibuses would have to be of a standard size, supplied by one Japanese firm. Thus, minibuses became a permanent form of transport in Hong Kong".
In November 1973 the Far Eastern Economic Review ran an article on Hong Kong corruption featuring the dubious career of Cheung Sam, who is the Cantonese equivalent of John Doe, which exemplified what had occurred. This lengthy article included the following reference to the minibuses operation.


Matters improved in 1968 when, through his police contacts, Cheung heard that nine-seat minibuses were to be legalised in congested Hong Kong. It cost him a good deal of money (since he was not dealing with junior civil servants) to find out from the Transport Department the precise specifications of the vehicles and thus grab a piece of the market by ordering the minibuses from Japan.
To the best of my knowledge, neither the Blair-Kerr report nor the two documents from which I have quoted have been challenged. It would appear, therefore, that there was corruption in the Hong Kong transport department at the time Mr. Shepherd was commissioner. There is no evidence to suggest that he either recognised the corruption or acted to sort it out. I have no wish to make unwarranted aspersions about Mr. Shepherd, but I believe that the information I put before the House obliges the Secretary of State to investigate the suitability of Mr. Shepherd to run a minibus service in London. I hope that such an investigaton would clear up any doubts that have been raised by the public documents which I have quoted, and that the AMOS proposals can be decided on their transport merits. However, nothing less than a thorough investigation will discharge the Secretary of State's obligation to ensure that the highest standards of conduct in public life are maintained in this matter, as in others.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) for giving us an opportunity to discuss these proposals. While, for reasons that I shall come to in a moment, I cannot comment on the merits of the AMOS case—and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his understanding comment—I should like to describe the legislative background. I hope that the House will find this useful.
The provision of stage carriage bus services in London is mainly governed by the Transport (London) Act 1969 and the Transport Act 1980. Under section 23 of the 1969 Act, no person other than London Transport, or a subsidiary of London Transport, can run a London bus service except with the agreement of London Transport. This agreement is given in the form of what is normally known as a London bus agreement. Under the 1969 Act, London Transport's decision on an application for an agreement was final; there was no provision for an appeal.
Section 35 of the Transport Act 1980 amended the 1969 Act provisions to allow an applicant for a London bus agreement to appeal to the Secretary of State. The applicant can appeal against a refusal by London Transport to enter into an agreement or a failure by London Transport to enter into an agreement within a reasonable period of time. The provisions in the 1980 Act specify which organisations have to be informed of an appeal. They are the GLC, the police and the boroughs through which the proposed service would operate. In determining the appeal the Secretary of State must take into account representations made by the GLC. He must take into account representations on relevant road traffic matters made by the police or the relevant boroughs. The provisions allow the Secretary of State, should he think it appropriate, to make an order requiring London Transport to enter into a London bus agreement with the appellant. The Act also allows appeals on points of law to the High Court against the Secretary of State's decision.
I understand that AMOS applied to London Transport in October of last year for a London bus agreement

covering four routes crossing London. The service would be operated between 7 am and midnight and would use 400 16-seat minibuses.
London Transport decided—and I use the words of its chairman—
in order that all the pros and cons of this radical idea are brought into the open and fully debated
that the application would be considered at a special public hearing under an independent inspector appointed by London Transport. The hearing lasted from 1 March to 11 March. Evidence was heard from AMOS, British Rail., the GLC, the taxi trade, the Metropolitan police, transport unions, some London borough councils and the London Transport Passengers Committee. London Transport submitted written evidence. Smaller groups and individuals representing only themselves also participated. London Transport clearly gave all interested parties a good opportunity to express their views and to cross-examine those with opposing views.
The inspector is now preparing his report. When he has presented it to London Transport, it will consider it and then reach a decision on the application. If London Transport agrees to the application, it will enter into a London bus agreement with AMOS, which will then be free to set up and operate its proposed services. If London Transport rejects the application, then, as I indicated earlier, AMOS has the opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State against that decision. The Secretary of State will then consider the matter. His normal practice is to arrange for an inquiry, which anyone can attend, to be held under an independent inspector. If he decides to uphold the appeal, he will make an order requiring London Transport to enter into a London bus agreement with the appellant. If he rejects the appeal, that is the end of the matter.
I cannot forecast what London Transport's decision will be, but it is possible that it will rule against AMOS, which will then be entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State. I do not therefore wish to comment on the merits of the AMOS proposals; any such remarks could inevitably be regarded as prejudicing the Secretary of State's possible appellate role in respect of the proposals.
I should add that an operator contemplating the provision of any public bus or minibus service would need to hold a public service vehicle operator's licence. As the hon. Gentleman may know, these licences are issued by the traffic commissioners and the operator has to satisfy the basic requirements of professional competence, financial standing, good repute, maintenance arrangements for vehicles, and so on.
I am sorry that I cannot say more on this subject at this stage, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that what I have said is helpful in the circumstances.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that in the event of the AMOS application being turned down by London Transport and an appeal being made to the Secretary of State, it would be wholly proper for the Secretary of State to look into the bona fides of the applicant and at what it may or may not have done in the past?

Mr. Eyre: I have explained the normal procedure that would apply in a matter of this kind, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my words carefully tomorrow. I also referred to the public service vehicle operator's licence. Those considerations apply in all cases of this


kind. If the hon. Gentleman considers carefully what I have said, I think he will find that I have answered his question in what I said about the normal procedure that would apply in such cases.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o' clock.